It is according to the department of health and human services, expert testimony, etc.
Once you've had a half centrury+ pack year smoker hack a loogie through their stoma on your shirt/lab jacket/scrubs, then ya win the smoking debates.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Pregnant Smokers
- Thread starter FBS1996
- Start date
It is according to the department of health and human services, expert testimony, etc.
Once you've had a half centrury+ pack year smoker hack a loogie through their stoma on your shirt/lab jacket/scrubs, then ya win the smoking debates.
Sorry but in a society of thinking individuals you do not.
And your medical license doesn't make you any more of an expert in all things medical than my Airline Transport Pilot license makes me an expert on all things aviation related.
Or my master's degree in software engineering making me an expert in all things software related.
Did you actually look at the meta-analysis in these studies? They conflict themselves half the time.
At one point it talks about how high of a percentage of low-birth weight was attributed to cocaine and some things "suggest" it may be partially attributable to nicotine as well.
In the next paragraph it said another study found no birth weight differences with cocaine and marijuana users, but 1.9% difference with nicotine.
This is what I mean about such studies, prime examples of conflicting information,
but...but...but...show me the proof...
heheheheh
I didn't even bother washing the proof. That one went into the trash can. Bought a new one.
"Our results indicate that public health efforts aimed at
reducing the number of pregnant women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy could increase the infant birthweight for these women, on average, by about 131 grams."
4 ounces.
Now - lower birth weight certainly correlates with some adult health issues... but it's generally a pretty weak correlation, and I doubt if you based a study on differential body weights of sub 200 grams the results would show much of anything.
Again - I'm not arguing that smoking is healthy, or that there is no harm to the fetus. I am arguing that among relatively common sources of potential fetal harm - smoking is a relatively minor one.
Your agrument is based on something from a blog site????
Perhaps if you would actually read what I post you would see there is a compendium of linked information here.
My information is based on far more, but then you are the one who continually twists words and contexts and uses your "credentials" to assert your superiority.
This man who runs this blog has far more "experience" than you or I in this subject matter, and he is anti-smoking.
However if you lack the intellectual honesty to even check such things out, then I can't help you.
Why would I do that?
Most aren't lying, most just don't really know what they are talking about.
Is that degree in epidemiology or biostatistics?
Or are you a Doctor/Nurse/etc. ?
Because there is a huge difference in understanding of studies and statistics.
4 ounces is a huge amount when we are considering a pre-term infant. That's not taking into account other complications like intrauterine growth restrictions. Then that measly 4 ounces becomes very important.
LOL, perfect. Rather than trying to throw the book at us, perhaps y'all should read what's in it?
You've got me convinced. I'm going to start getting all my medical advice from internet bassists.
You are 100% right, misinterpreting the information, that is what I meant earlier, it isn't about the data, it is about how it is interpreted.
Like I said earlier though, and as aborgman pointed out you are premising on an interpretation that conflicts with some data, agrees with some and ignores some. This is why Meta-Analysis' such as these must be thoroughly investigated for statistical verification. Statistics many times are little more than lies suited towards agendas.
Another good compendium of resources outside of the anti-smoking lobbies is http://www.antibrains.com/ . As well as www.thetruthisalie.com
How about before citing all the things everyone has seen time and time again you take some time to actually look at the other side of things. Nothing in these claims smoking is good for you or healthy. It is just an attempt to slow the massive crackdown and the pseudo-science fueling the anti-smoking crusades.
No, it isn't.
Otherwise we wouldn't have competing expert testimony in trials, nor voir dire questioning to determine qualifications of expert witnesses.
Well, I guess I win then.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
Behrman RE. Low birth weight. Future Child 1995 5 124 said:
article here : Invalid Link Removed
On the infants in these studies we're talking about 131 grams on a pre-term infant in the 2000-2500 gram range... or somewhere in the 5% of bodyweight range.
It isn't a huge amount.
You've got me convinced. I'm going to start getting all my medical advice from internet bassists.
I wouldn't get it there.
...and when it comes to epidemiology or biostatistics, I wouldn't get it from your standard practicing member of the medical field either.
Asking your average doctor about epidemiology is like asking your average driver to engineer an automobile.
aborgman said:
Sorry. That's too much of a blanket statement to be valid. I need to see the statistics that support that.
