The link between cigarette smoking and cancer is pretty shaky from a truly objective scientific perspective, the man who invented the statistical techniques relied on by epidemiology said so himself (RA Fisher). Ultimately all “scientific” decisions and paradigms are political or at the very best subjective. There is no such thing as scientific certainty. In the fundamental analysis science is a description that tells us nothing about meaning. Once government gave up on religion they had to appropriate science as the source of authority, which means science as practiced nowadays is inherently corrupt. You will not be able to “prove” anything using science or science adjacent methods that ruling authorities don’t want you to prove. The battle is spiritual not material in a very real sense.
Sketches in the Ruins of My Mind
I dance around and sing a song and know that I can do no wrong…
“The link between cigarette smoking and cancer is pretty shaky from a truly objective scientific perspective, the man who invented the statistical techniques relied on by epidemiology said so himself (RA Fisher)” – could you provide with references? I was under the impression that the criteria by Bradford Hill were the correct way to go and said that smoking was the cause of lung cancer. Or not?
Smoking and health is an interesting subject to look in to. Now however, thanks to scientism, we’re in to second, third, fourth hand, etc. smoke. It’s a subject that has never been approached impartially and objectively. It’s a microcosm of the pathology of how government operates. I recommend you check out W.M Brigg’s blog, the author of “Everything You Believe is Wrong” – https://www.wmbriggs.com/