Another Study NO Cancer Link

[The JD]

Originally Posted by fvfanmc

I don't pay attention to case studies. Mainly, because the studies are slanted to state whatever (the group that is funding the study), wants it to state. For example, if the tobacco industry is financing the study, the study would state that there is no link to second hand smoke. If the AMA is financing the study, the study will state that there is a link to second hand smoke.

This is basically why I always check the source for any article on studies like this and then find the actual numeric results in the study. It's a nice way to cut through the bullshit. Either the results are significant or they aren't. It used to be a RR of 3 or 4 was considered standard for "significance". Once they started doing passive smoking studies they tried lowering it to 2 and it seems like in this case they went as far as 1.6, which means they're clearly trying to stretch the numbers into something they aren't.

[Briandg]

i think its just lovely to find out that the confidence level is a wider spread than the deviation from random or norm.

When the accuracy of the study is statistically doubtful in itself, and a finding of only a few points off of random expectations, it's only good for a journalist.