Vitamin supplements: suggestions/feedback

[harryopal1]

The wonderful scientists also made the ridiculous claim that secondary smoking was worse than actual smoking. Fortunately it was quickly debunked but some people still believe it.

Debunked by whom? At least in the Western countries, unfortunately, the cigarette producers using chemicals were the big corporations so there seems little doubt that in the main these products have been and very injurious.

 

[pantaiema]

The oldest woman in the world a decade or so ago was a French woman who still smoked at the age of about 129. So on that basis surely scientists should be recommending smoking for every body.

"what would be the impact if she wasn't smoking" That's not scientific, its hypothetical.

I am not quite sure whether this is a serious statement. But anyway I will provide my reasoning.

This isn't about a hypothetical scenario; it is about the flawed way conclusions are being drawn.
Let me clarify with simple examples:
"One person drinks cyanide and survives (because of miracle)"
Does that mean drinking cyanide will not cause fatality ??

"One person get stabbed by a knife and do not get injured"
Does that mean that every one get stabbed by a knife will not get injured ??

Your reasoning relies on an illogical generalization. In the case of smoking, you are focusing on just one individual, while millions of people smoke every day. This might be an isolated case. In proper research using statistical data and sound methodology, a sufficient sample size is required; the sample will normally needs to be diverse and representative. Only then can a valid conclusion be drawn. But in your case, you are basing it on a single person, while numerous scientific studies conducted by experts published in respected scientific journals have demonstrated the opposite.

Another flaw in your inference is failing to consider that many factors influence human lifespan, not just smoking. To draw a clean conclusion, you would need to isolate all other variables, which, in this case, is nearly impossible.

 

[kripik-pisang]

"This might be an isolated case. In proper research using statistical data and sound methodology, " Unfortunately, no sound research was ever done. They only did research into cigarettes loaded with additives. No differentiation into those with additives and those without.

 

[kripik-pisang]

Debunked by whom? At least in the Western countries, unfortunately, the cigarette producers using chemicals were the big corporations so there seems little doubt that in the main these products have been and very injurious.

I don't remember, but why would you need to know when its blatantly obvious that smoking a cigarette is bound to be more harmful than taking in a tiny fraction of the smoke, secondarily.

 

[Hawk256]

If you want to learn a little about the cigarette industry and what they were doing to tobacco, a quick search for Jeffrey Wigand will unearth a lot of information. One of the biggest whistle blowers in history.

 

[Shadrach]

Maybe they should all smoke cigarettes laced with cyanide, and just stab each other, then see if anyone lives? But then, they would have to separate all other variables before coming to a conclusion, hypothetically speaking!

 

[Hawk256]

Maybe they should all smoke cigarettes laced with cyanide, and just stab each other, then see if anyone lives? But then, they would have to separate all other variables before coming to a conclusion, hypothetically speaking!

Why not? Kent cigarettes had an asbestos filer for a while.