Anyway, I’m curious about what your thoughts are on those findings, and what role they may also play in the death rate of smokers?

I do appreciate your dogged pursuit of your position. I recommend you add this topic to your health econ class. It has certainly helped me evaluate how committed you are to your putative quest for truth.

Glad you didn’t quit blogging back a year back when you kept bringing it up. Would’ve missed out on near v far and dreamtime.

But you’ve definitely dipped permanently below the “high status” meridian on this one, so my desire to affiliate w you is at an end.

FYI I’ve cited the original studies — you can find their modern updates yourself with google. Its already clear you can’t be bothered to look at a review article, you can look some thing up yourself.

HEH this point is utterly classic — you should be EMBARRASSED. Your “review” article is by Cornfield, one of the main partisans in this dispute, so it is hardly neutral, and it doesn’t mention randomized trials of any sort.

That’s after you post studies funded by the Tobacco Industry and say they are “professional”. Seriously you should be ashamed of yourself.

I guess reviews paid for by the Tobacco industry can be taken seriously, but those that believe smoking is linked to cancer and increased mortality aren’t to be taken seriously.

I think the first step to “overcoming bias” — would be to get over your childish need to be contrarian.

Studies:
1. Doll R, Hill AB. Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking; a second report on the mortality of British doctors. Brit M J (1956) 2:1071–1081.

2.) Schwartz D, Denoix P. L’enquette francaise sur l’etiologie du cancer broncho-pulmonaire: role du tabac. La Semaine des Hopitaux de Paris (1957) 33:424–437

3.) egi M, Fukushima I, Fugisaku S, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. Gann (1957) 48:63.

4.) Dorn H. Tobacco consumption and mortality from cancer and other diseases. Acta Unio internat contra cancrum. In press.

5.) Hammond EC, Horn D. Smoking and death rates – report on forty-four months of follow-up of 187,783 men. JAMA (1958) 166:1159–1172. and 1294–1308.

Historical prospective and review of data can be found @
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/38/5/1175#B9

Or start @ Surgeon Generals 2004 update report on smoking risk.

BTW — Obviously as this thread indicated you somehow had no idea what COPD was, it seems equally clear you don’t know what a dose-response curve is. I don’t feel like its my job to educate you on pack-years and risk of disease.

IIRC, you had quite a different attitude about the pharmaceutical company-sponsored research used to justify FDA approval of SSRI’s for treatment of depression, as well as other pharmaceutical claims. Frankly, I’m stunned that you, with no expertise whatever in the fields of oncology or pulmonary physiology, would accept industry-sponsored information because “they seem professional” (to you). One of the first steps a rationalist would take to “overcome bias” is the elimination of conflict of interest.

Lorillard Tobacco Co., Greensboro, North Carolina

The tobacco companies have a reputation for playing very dirty with science. That was actually one of the first thoughts that occurred to me on reading your research summary – “Are results like this rather more likely to pop up with tobacco-company-funded research?”