Health?

[Kofod]

With regards to the "representing hookah smoking" issue. The work Eissenberg refers to (i presume) is this article: [url="http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/downloads/argilehpap"]http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/do...oads/argilehpap[/url] er1.pdfBy the mentioned lebanese group.Their aim is to reflect that of a typical smoking session seen in cafe´s of Beirut.They set up a typical cafe pipe with nakhla and one three kings coal. It seems they have made thoughts in order to replicate real conditions. Though it is reasonable to question wether it is sufficient. In my own oppinion I would think that the system does not take into account periods with "bad smoke" or "burning pipe" -> we can have a situation where the machine inhales smoke in times where a human smoker would have discontinued or changed the smoking setting.With regards to the smoke. No burning has to take place for solids to be in smoke - in fact, no smoke no solids. Smoke is an emulsion of gas and solids. So your smoke does contain solids. Furthermore, even vaporized glycerine will show as tar in a test - if its not water or nicotine then its tar.That being said - I also share the oppinion that quality moassel with right amount of glycerine burns more lightly, gives more white, less harsch smoke which I will presume is more waterfilled and with less tar. But the fact remains as long as glycerine is not water, its tar (and not good to have in the lungs) and as long as your smoke tastes of something else than water and/or nicotine there´s tar in it.

[Sonthert]

Sure, but the real issue with tar is the material that isn't water-soluble, your lungs have to phlegm it out. Glycerine is water soluble and eminantly safe. It may be nominally safer than water in terms of LD50. The warm dampness of your lungs should absorb the glycerine directly or wash it away. Cigarettes make smoker's hack. Hookah doesn't, at least not for me. Cigarettes require the expulsion of "tar" where the tar from hookahs is easily removed/digested/metabolized.

[dizzing]

you're right, i have a friend with a SEVERE smokers hack, but when we smoke hookah, he almost NEVER coughs unless we hit a rough spot in the hookah and it gets harsh (ie burns)

[Kofod]

Tangiers - of course, hookah tar and cigarette tar are not similar, but wether the difference is like you describe it is hard to say. My own belief is also that the tar in moassel less damaging, but that it just kinda flushes right out or absorbs in the lungs because it is watersoluble is maybe a little optimistic. I dont know if glycerine or other compounds can be metabolized if ending up in the lungs.I think some of the difference comes with cigarette tar particles being more heavier compounds, more carbon ->  closer to what we call tar in other contexts. This would also create an effect where hookah tar is easier to get out of the lungs than cigarette tar.But this issue is definetly something for the science to address - not just focusing on the quantitive difference between cigarette and hookah smoke but rather the qualitative diffence in the smoke. (Futhermore I am quite sceptical on the Lebanese results, so I dont think the quantitive results so far can be used for much - they maybe not performed correctly since some things does'nt add up from a chemist point of view).

[Sonthert]

Well, we use glycerine all the time, its in hand lotions, soaps, cosmetics of all kinds...it just is absorbed by your skin. Where it is real damp and warm, in your lungs, it would occur far faster. Finally, someone who agrees with my point substantively, everyone smokes differently, how can you generalize "hookah smoke".

[pavlakos_politakos]

this is  a bit off topic but people keep mentioning the amount of nicotine in shi sha compared to cigarrettes but i was just looking at  a box of HAVANA double apple flavor and it reads:nicotine-0.00% and tar- 00.05%.so no nicotine =no addiction and the amount of tar  is so miniscule it barely matters.how bad could it be.and like sariel i too am in denial and feel better off.
thank you.

[Sonthert]

I think its a typo, they reversed tar and nicotine.Besides, as Eissenberg and Kofod and assorted others pointed out, how much Carbon Monoxide is in there? That's what causes the majority of the heart disease risk.

[HookahDuck]

It seems like I read a study which claimed there was much more "tar" and nicotine than claimed on the package. Infact, the numbers on the package represent the tar and nicotine quantities in their unsmoked form(with no catalyst)

[Sonthert]

Actually, the nicotine amounts are in accordance with my calculations. 0.5% nicotine makes perfect sense.

[E.G.]

Tang --

I realize I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but some of your posts
are driving me up a wall! :-)  With due respect (nothing against
you personally), your posts strike me as the perfect example of those
who desperatly want smoking anything other than a ciggarete to somehow
be safe, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

I do think you make a valid point about genetics.  Sure, there are
people out there that smoke like chimmnees, drink like fish, have a
morning dose of arsenic to keep their skin nice and fair, and will live
to 100+.  They are, however, by and far the exception. 

As an analogy, I really dislike exercise.  I think it should fall
under the Geneva Connvention's ban on torture.   So anytime anyone
says to me "You know, you should really take up some exercise -- there
are reams of studies demonstrating it's good for your heart, stamina,
mood, etc." I point out my friend's father who was an exercise fanatic,
at the gym twice a day from age 13 'til he dropped of a heart attack at
47.  So, yes, I have a very real, very concrete example of a
dramatic exception to a large amount of somewhat more abstract
info.  Does that make the studies incorrect?  We should all
sit around in front of the TV for as long as possible?

So, back to genetics.  They do influence things on an individual
basis, true.  But the point of looking more broadly at a large
population is to decrease the influence of those unusal cases on the
outcomes.  Your a chemical engineer, surely you must have had
statistics and recall the concept of outliers?

As for your objection about it only being a "correlation," if that's
going to be your basis for dismissing scientific findings, then we're
going to be right back in the dark ages!  Damn near everything is
a "correlation" as you've defined it.  If I have a whopping
pneumonia and I take these little pills the doc gives me and I feel
better, and if a lot of people do that, there is a correlation. 
Are you going to argue that antibiotics don't kill bacteria? 
Maybe my body fought it off; maybe it's the life cycle of the bug and
it was going to go away anyway; maybe hittting the hookah an extra few
times suffocated the buggers ;-)

Returning to statistcs again, that's why papers run statistical
tests.  They're looking to see if the results that they've found
are likely a true effect of whatever intervention they've taken rather
than just as a result of chance.  Might they still be wrong? Sure,
about 5 times out of 100 based on statistical convention.  But if
the results are found to be statiscally significant, it means that
there's probably something more than correlation or coincidence going
on.

You do make a valid point regarding methodology, though.  Hookah
smoking is very hard to standardize -- just look at all the posts
regarding types of massall, coals, foil vs. screens, what foil
patterns, how much water, what else can go in the base, wind cover or
no, filters on hoses, diffusers, ice in the base etc etc etc. 
Hookah is clearly smoked differently than a cig so a different,
standardized, reasonably representative of common smoking practices in
regard to the variables mentioned way of measuring the smoke needs to
be devised.  I didn't read all the articles that Eissenberg
posted, so I don't know how they shape up on this front. 
Poor methodology, or an outrageous premise is a good reason to not take a study too seriosuly, I will agree.

Just my... well, at this point it's probably more than two cents.  Maybe two quarters?

E.G.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='E.G.']Tang --

I realize I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but some of your posts
are driving me up a wall! :-)  With due respect (nothing against
you personally), your posts strike me as the perfect example of those
who desperatly want smoking anything other than a ciggarete to somehow
be safe, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

I do think you make a valid point about genetics.  Sure, there are
people out there that smoke like chimmnees, drink like fish, have a
morning dose of arsenic to keep their skin nice and fair, and will live
to 100+.  They are, however, by and far the exception.   [/quote]

[quote name='E.G.']Tang --

I realize I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but some of your posts are
driving me up a wall! :-)  With due respect (nothing against you
personally), your posts strike me as the perfect example of those who
desperatly want smoking anything other than a ciggarete to somehow be safe, no
matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

I do think you make a valid point about genetics.  Sure, there are people
out there that smoke like chimmnees, drink like fish, have a morning dose of
arsenic to keep their skin nice and fair, and will live to 100+.  They
are, however, by and far the exception.   

E.G.[/quote]



If I’m driving you up a wall, I must be on the right track.


Well regarding your two coins, here's a whole buck:

I have said, in other posts, and once in huge lettering "Smoking Kills
People". So, now, what about that isn't clear? How am I a person whom:
[quote name='E.G.']"your posts strike me as the perfect example of those who desperatly want
smoking anything other than a ciggarete to somehow be safe, no matter how much
evidence is placed in front of them."[/quote]
?

Well the evidence isn't there regarding hookahs, yet. Since the product isn't standardized,
data will be hard in coming. Where is your evidence? I see evidence and ask
questions from Mr. Monologue and other learned people for clarification to
directly tie it to our more familiar practices, on Hookah Forum, but I get
nothing. I like to decide what I believe for myself. I agree, empirically,
rationally, what you say makes a little sense. Science, doesn't allow us the
luxury to assume things are true because it fits in with our view of the world,
does it? Sometimes, we find what we held to be a scientific sacred cow was
wrong. Newton seemed like he had a grip on
mechanics, Newton
was the father of physics for years.  Then some practical joker named
Albert Einstein who didn't wear socks when he bicycled to work said there was
more to it. Direct observation was applicable in a few cases, but not
necessarily all the time.

[quote name='E.G.']"So, back to genetics.  They do influence things on an individual
basis, true.  But the point of looking more broadly at a large population
is to decrease the influence of those unusal cases on the outcomes.  Your
a chemical engineer, surely you must have had statistics and recall the concept
of outliers?"[/quote]
In fact, one of my five college degrees is in mathematics...yes, I remember all
of the classes I took in probability and all the classes I took in decision
making based on probability. Medical science, in some cases, is statistical
mysticism used to cover up for a lack of understanding of genetics. Your
"outliers" are statistically reasonable genetic cases. They do exist.
They are real. The point is, you can't say with certainty that for any given
person, their cancer rate is going to rise by a certain amount. Truth be told,
some of them, the rate is going to rise several orders of magnitude. For some
of them, it’s not going to change much at all. It’s all bulked into an average.
Cancer is not a range; it is not an array or a matrix. Cancer is a dialectical
valuation: You have it or you don't. You don't get 42% of a cancer. Best
evidence is that cancer is predominantly genetic. If you don’t have a genetic
predisposition, cancer is far less likely to beat a path to your door. Since a
doctor can’t say one way or the other, right now, they just fall back on
statistics. The example I used before, “Your pregnant, Ms. Smith, your baby has
a 12% chance of being black.” Its absurd, the genetic predisposition for race will
supersede the statistical makeup of the population. So it is in race, so it is in
environmental factors like smoking. You can call them freaks or minorities or
outliers, it doesn’t change the fact that there are two groups: cancers and not
cancers.

 

In current medical science, there is, in my opinion, a spurious observation of
a correlation:

“Fatter people are more likely to get diabetes.” Why?
Because we did a statistical study and we found that Americans are getting
fatter and diabetes rates are going up. There is a correlation. We learned
about similar cases in my class on statistical sampling methods, I wanted to
use a medical one. So, we’ve made the gigantic, irrational leap that diabetes is
caused by being fat. Medical science disguises it by using punk phrases like “risk
factors”, but they’re saying fattys get diabetes. We are using your same logic
here. Retreating back to my cornerstone: “Correlation does not imply causation.”
Why? In addition to the population becoming fatter, it is becoming more Hispanic.
Hispanics have far, far higher rates of diabetes, whether it’s thin or fat.
Since Hispanics are the largest growing group in America, maybe that could explain
the increase of diabetes, not the coincidental and unfortunate increase in
people’s weights?

 

As a side point, before leaving diabetes…Lets say it is
based on weight…is being fat causing diabetes, or is having diabetes causing
the obesity? Diabetes is caused by a failure of the pancreas. It happens in
different stages of life, the onset that it is. Perhaps people who develop it
later in life have had a defective pancreas for a long time, all their lives,
in fact and the defective pancreas allows their blood sugar to drop before most
people’s would, because they are getting as much sugar out of their food as
they should, so they have to eat more than the average person, making them
fatter…Possible? Even if the correlation is correct, the causation may be
backward. Just a thought.


[quote name='E.G.'] 

“As for your objection about it only being a
"correlation," if that's going to be your basis for dismissing
scientific findings, then we're going to be right back in the dark ages! “[/quote]

No, we’ve come this far, using the scientific method, just
because a new crop of science-terrorists has sprung up, using bullsh*t science
to further their weird agendas, we don’t have to change the scientific method.
It works. Fact is a hard thing to come by….the bible thumpers want there to be
a black and a white. It makes them feel better.


[quote name='E.G.'] 

“Damn near everything is a "correlation" as you've
defined it.  If I have a whopping pneumonia and I take these little pills
the doc gives me and I feel better, and if a lot of people do that, there is a
correlation.”  [/quote]Yes, it is a correlation. If that pill was a placebo, then your
recovery has nothing to do with the pill. You walked right into that one, man.
[quote name='E.G.'] 

Returning to statistics again, that's why papers run
statistical tests.  They're looking to see if the results that they've
found are likely a true effect of whatever intervention they've taken rather
than just as a result of chance.  Might they still be wrong? Sure, about 5
times out of 100 based on statistical convention.  But if the results are
found to be statiscally significant, it means that there's probably something
more than correlation or coincidence going on.”[/quote]

Go back to your basic statistics. Your 95% statistical
significance is regarding a correlation. The discipline of statistics NEVER
speaks to the factuality of a matter. Your interpretation is all wrong. If it
is statistically significant, then it is a statistically significant
correlation. Statistics only provides us with correlations. You could modify my
proposal: “Statistics do not imply causation.”

 

Thank you for the compliment. I’m glad there are still
people out there who exercise their brains like you do…you’re a very
intelligent person and I respect your efforts.

[E.G.]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply --  here's a slightly lack-of-sleep addled response
[quote=E.G.]

“Damn near everything is a "correlation" as you've
defined it.  If I have a whopping pneumonia and I take these little pills
the doc gives me and I feel better, and if a lot of people do that, there is a
correlation.”


[/quote]Yes, it is a correlation. If that pill was a placebo, then your
recovery has nothing to do with the pill. You walked right into that one, man.
[/QUOTE]


Point.  I should've included a control group with a placebo.
[QUOTE]Statistics only provides us with correlations. You could modify my
proposal: “Statistics do not imply causation.”

 [/quote]

Agreed.  Again, though, I find myself asking
at what point do you say the preponderance of the evidence suggests
that there is really is causation?  What level of evidence is
satisfactory, since it's all correlation in the end?

And does this have anything to do with hookah anymore? :-)

E.G.

[jmexx]

Holy post war batman!I'm not even going to bother reading all that. I've got tangs back, though. Go tang!Jon

[Sonthert]

[quote=E.G.]

Agreed, the evidence isn't there yet.  But I do think that there are at
least some hints, albeit with imperfect methodology, that running smoke through
water isn't the saving grace that a lot of people seem to think it is.

Unfortunatly, it seems that in general anytime anything is posted it is
rejected out of hand by a lot of people as ased on that very preconcieved
notion (water being a good filter).  I don't see any evidence for that,
either.  

So, my bias would be to draw an analogy between an activity for which the
risks are reasonably well known and generally accepted by most mainstream docs
and health researcher types i.e. cigaretee smoking and this relativly
unresearched activity i.e. hookah , tend to see more similariites than
differences (or even differences that might be "worse") and err on
the side of the more conservative conclusion.. 'til there is good evidence.

[/quote]

You are right, running the smoke through the water doesn’t impact the
problems associated with the smoke, in my opinion.

The water does practically nothing to filter
the smoke.

That’s for the benefit of the people, who joined this conversation late.

Why do you assume that smoking cigarettes and smoking a hookah (Smoking a
hookah [u]is[/u] a misnomer) are the logical analogy to draw? Would you draw an
analogy between sucking on an exhaust pipe and boiling water, because, in an exaggerated
manner, that’s the relative relation between cigarettes and hookah. You are
analyzing it the same way researchers are, in my opinion, misinterpreting it,
its tobacco…Would we compare a nicotine patch and a cigarette? We’re not
burning the tobacco in a hookah or in a nicotine patch. We can’t even
reasonably compare pipe smoking and cigarette smoking because their rates are
so disparate. Cigarette smokers have something like three times the morbidity
rate as a pipe smoker (English Pipe, not a hookah), this is anecdotal, I have
no evidence that I’ve read to this. They’re both burning tobacco, too. I go
back to my previous fallacious point…we should be comparing the health effects
of smoking a hookah to the health effects of using nicotine patches. I know
this is overstated, but I don’t think it is too much more overstated than
comparing a hookah to cigarettes. That’s why this line of reasoning and this
message “drives me up a wall”. People see tobacco and they automatically make a
decision about it, that doesn’t [u]scientifically exist[/u]. Its all
assumption.

[quote]

On the other hand, I think you are also obligated to respect the weight of
the evidence if science is to get anywhere.  There has been an intersting
weaking of the concept of "truth" at the end of the 20th
century.  While I think it is important to acknowedge that what is
perceived as "true" may very well be dependent on one's perspective,
that doesn't mean that there isn't a "truth" for some things out
there -- either something happened or it didn't, something works this way or it
doesn't, or something causes something or doesn't.  We may not be able to
measure it directly, but I think we can get close.  Something just doesn't
sit right with me about your arguments, and I think that might be the crux of
it.  Sorry I can't seem to express it more clearly.

[/quote]

Truth is never relative. Once you start applying value judgments to science,
it loses any real value. Truth, to science, is a very, very hard case to
provide. If we value truth, we must keep a tight lock on it, so that we don’t
have to come back, years down the line, and throw out years of faulty science
predicated on a “truth” that wasn’t true at all. Einstein’s work is still in
the category of theory! The theory of relativity states…blah blah. Just because
we take a vote doesn’t mean something is true. The theory of gravity is close
to truth. The Earth revolving around the Sun, and rotating about its axis;
these are truth. Smoking cigarettes and cancer: theory. Diabetes and weight:
theory. Truth isn’t about close. It’s about truth. The whole argument that
smoking a hookah is bad is predicated on an association with tobacco, and since
cigarettes cause cancer in great quantities, research shows us, and they are
made with tobacco, since hookahs use tobacco, they must be linked with
cigarettes. Cigar morbidity rates are substantially lower that cigarettes, why
not use them as a basis for comparison? Pipe smokers have a nominal rate of
morbidity, comparable to non-smokers (anecdotal, again), why not compare them?
You’ve already made an assumption that the medical community has made. Is it
true? Not necessarily, I prefer to smoke my hookah and wait for the bad news
rather than assuming, the same way I feel about any theory. In the sixties,
medical evidence mounted that consumption of LSD caused chromosomal damage, it
would cause the user to “become insane” with no hope of recovery and that it
lead to the worst type of addiction known. Any medical doctor who would propose
such a thing now would be laughed at. LSD is dangerous, but not for the reasons
listed. The evidence was there, the studies were there. The theory was in
place. Is it true? Not by empirical inspection, its not. If a theory doesn’t meet
up with empirical observations, it can’t possible be true.

Sorry for the drug talk…it seemed germane. I’m not advocating the use of
drugs. Don’t use drugs. Just say no.

[quote]

OK, clearly I'm outclassed on this one. 


 [/quote]

No your not. College degrees are just another form of officially sanctioned
authority in sheepskin form. You are obviously very intelligent, educated and your
thought processes are of the highest caliber. We have a simple intellectual disagreement,
and your opinions are well respected on this end. See if Adrock will start a
mutual admiration board and we can continue this line of discussion there…

[quote]

Perhaps, yes, medicine is sometimes "mysticism" standing in for a
lack of understanding of genetics.  At times.  I never denied the
existance of the extreme cases -- I still suspect I'm coming at this from a
population based view, and you're coming at this from an individual's view.  

[/quote]

Yes, moreover, I am rejecting your population based view as fallacious. Yes,
I know modern medicine depends on them. Yes, I know this is borderline sacrilegious.
What’s true of the whole is not necessarily true of the individual. Would you
propose, since the United States
is well over two hundred years old, and I am a citizen of the United States,
that I am over two hundred years old? We can find relevant data for the
population, but on an individual basis, this only provides a possibility which
is ruled out by, or justified by genetics, for the most part. In the future,
doctors will look back at doctors of today and think that they are barbaric,
voodoo practitioners. I mean, in real terms, the statistical population of
African-American males in the penal system is higher than their prevalence in
the general population. Should you assume, therefore, that an African-American
man, walking down the street is a criminal? Of course not, that would be racist
and unreasonable. There is not a genetic basis to the criminal analogy, but I’m
trying to point out that applying statistics from a group to an individual is a
case of generalization. If you feel it is Okay to generalize about cancer rates
in society, applying them to individuals then you would, applying the same
reason, assume that of a black man and a white man standing on a street corner,
the black man is more likely to be a criminal. In truth, the African-American
could be the CEO of a company.

[quote]

[quote]It’s all bulked into an average. Cancer is not a range; it is not an
array or a matrix. Cancer is a dialectical valuation: You have it or you don't.
You don't get 42% of a cancer.[/quote]

All true.  But something's not ringing right for me with where you seem
to be going -- I'm not sure I have the right language to express it
though.  I think it's the fact that engaging in a certain activity will,
when looked at across a wide segment of the population, increase the rate (or
prevelance?) of a disease by some amount.  Given that the populations are
otherwise identical, then, it is concluded that partaking in the activity
raises the chacnces of developing a disease by X amount -- which is an all or
nothing proposition when you get down to the individual.  It's just that
you've stacked the odds in favor of the "all."

Yes, this discounts genetics.  As you've pointed out, for many things
we don't know thieir influence.  Maybe that's where we're butting
heads?  You want the genetics so we can point to the individual and say
you have these genes, so if you do this your chances are this?  Whereas
I'm looking at the proxy we have 'til we get to that point to make a best-guess
about what someone's chances are?

[/quote]

Ok, look at the reverse logic…statistically; if you flew on a commercial airline
flight something like five times a day, it would take you 21,000 years for you
to be killed in a plane crash. By the statistics, nobody dies in plane crashes,
because nobody lives 21,000 years. People still die, these are your outliers.
The statistics mean nothing to them, they’re dead…a dialectical result…dead or
not dead…statistics say something should be impossible that is and vice versa.
Individuals die in plane crashes, not a statistical possibility of the
population. Yes, I agree, until science emerges, the voodoo we use in medicine
is fine, for now…Let’s not run around proclaiming the truth, lets make sure its
on the table...statistically, something may happen, the truth is, we don’t what
will happen. If you never get in a car, you can’t be killed while driving…duh. 

[quote]

OK, then, what constitues "proof" for you, then, given that we do
not have genetic testing avialble yet?  I have this unsettling feeling
that your argument quickly leads down the path of "it's all correlation,
so it don't mean squat."

[/quote]

Proof is irrelevant. Everything is a study in finite probabilities, that’s why
the guy that runs the insurance company is an actuary. If you let a research
scientist/doctor run it, they would go broke.

No, that’s not what I am implying. We have a tendency to make a horse and
pony show of statistics. Leave ‘em out and just tell people what you found.
Without quoting statistics, people would look at a lot of the scientific
studies for the stupidity that they are. “People holding long, metallic poles
in thunderstorms were 26% more likely to be killed or severely injured than
people not holding a long, metal pole. That may be a good comparison for our
discussion. We’re all standing in a thunderstorm…the smokers are holding
lightning rods, the non-smokers are not. Smoking a hookah is like holding a
lightning rod, but we don’t know how big…6’? 20’? a few inches? If you’re
holding a lightning rod, you’re more likely to end up looking like KFC’s prize
catch. Luck does have a measure to do with cancer, I would imagine, too.

[quote]

  As I understand stats, that's sort of the point -- if studies are
designed well and reach statistical signifigance, then the chances are that the
correlation is real (on the population level, again).

An example... Let's make a study where a group of people in identical cars
runs red lights in a simialr city in simialr traffic conditions etc etc
etc.  The control group is a similar set of people who stop for the red
lights.  Let's assume that when all is said and done, there is a
statistically signficant difference in the number of accidents the experimental
group gets into.   

On the individual level, it's entirly possible that John didn't get into an
accident, but Matt did.  There's no way to tell that that was going to
happen, and there still won't be.  But are you willing to argue that there
is *no* signifcant increased risk incured when you choose to run red
lights?  After all, the only thing we've shown (assuming the methodolgy is
sound) is a correlation.

Medically, it is entirely possible medicine is loooking at the wrong thing
all together. Maybe a study is picking up something which is really a secondary
effect of a diffeernt process.  It happens.  But that's why the
Einsteins need to be listend to.  Until then, though, the Newtonian model
does tend to work in most cases.

[/quote]

There was a time when weather was predicted by using entrails. They didn’t
work so well, and it was a waste of a chicken. People learned, by observation,
to predict weather on a today or tomorrow kind of a scale. Now, we have
satellites, radar-equipped planes, ocean buoys, thermal detection units and
even more goodies. Can we predict the weather? Nope. Will we be able to predict
weather in the near future? Nope. Are we getting better? Yes, absolutely. I don’t
like the proposition that statistics are paraded around like a beacon for
ignorance. The medical community should be acting like engineers or physicists,
not weathermen. The medical community issues statistics and new studies, but
they’re too abstract. I like the approach of the Surgeon General’s Office. “Smoking
is bad for you, based on the data we looked at.” Don’t load this gun with
mathematical crap most people can’t understand. If you have a history of heart
disease or cancer, please don’t smoke. Simple...stop justifying the
mass-marketing and corruption of science for financial profit. Don’t endlessly
study crap we already have the answers to…yes, gravity pulls us to the Earth,
we studied it and we’re issuing our findings. That last sentence sums my objections
up. The reliance on statistics generated by commercially-paid studies corrupts
science and makes it untrustworthy.

[quote]

Yes.  But what if, rather than a cross sectional study as you've
described, you take a prospective study.  Find an identical-as-possible
group of people (age, race, occupation, environmental exposure, etc ad
nauseum), and watch them for a good long time.  Look at the rate of
obesity and diabetes there.  You can nitpick about differences among the
subjects 'til the cows come home, but at what point do you cede that there is something
to it?

This does mean that you have to use the noggin
when applying it, of course.  A study that involves rich white eldelrly
urban American females may not necessarily apply to young male Australian
Aboriganes.

Or, alternatly, do a case control study. Take the same population as
above.  Divide into two groups -- control every aspect of their lives,
down to the amount of excercise they get.  Give one group three times as
many calories, to ensure the weight goes up.  Look at the incidence of
diabetes years later.  Still a correlation.  Invalid conclusion?

Granted, for environmental causes that's an impossible scenario.  But,
again, that's why the prospective study exists (or the retrospective study --
much cheaper!) -- to try to get as close to that situation as possible. 
It's not a static cross sectional sample as you outline, so I don't think it's
susceptible to the flaw that you seem to be basing your argument on.  I'm
rather cetain that's how the realtive risk factors for smoking were established;
I'm willing to bit the same is true for diabetes.

[/quote]

Pharmaceutical companies manipulate these things to make their studies look
good. Why have several drugs come out recently as dangerous? The drug companies
knew, but they manipulated their data to make them look safer for the FDA than
they actually were. Magically, some serious, life-threatening problems arise…we
didn’t know, really. Please! I’m not stupid…you just didn’t want to lose all of
you’re development money, after you’d gotten to stage two and three trials! I
worked in the pharmaceutical industry, trust me. They carve these studies up to
support the conclusion they were paid to find. Likewise, for many medical
researchers, they stretch numbers as far as they can. A study came out several
years ago; it stated that bald men were many times more likely to suffer heart
disease than men who had a full head of hair. So, should we prohibit men from
shaving their heads? Should we make menoxodil (sp?) part of Medicaid? It is a
study, statistics are in place…are we to assume that there’s proof that
baldness causes heart disease? Obviously, on examination, we would reasonably
postulate the theory that there was a genetic commonality…perhaps alpha-hydroxy
testosterone (the chemical responsible for male pattern baldness) also
exacerbates heart disease. Maybe shaving you head does do it…we can’t tell
directly. The fact of the matter is as you see it, with your assumptions.

[quote] 

Seems unlikely as diabetes is understood right now.  The pancreas
produces insulin.  Insulin acts as a key, "opening up" the cells
to sugar.  If the panceras is shot (diabetes), less insulin is
produced.  So, a defective pancreas would not allow a person's blood sugar
to drop more quickly than someone with a normally functional pancreas -- just
the opposite in fact.  Their blood sugar is going to be higher, for
longer, because they are not getting the sugar out of their blood stream into
the cells.  So, if they eat the same as a normal person, they actually get
less energy going to where it needs to go, and it can't be stored as fat. 
Or the same amount of energy is delivered over a longer period of time --
meaning they wouldn't have the drive to eat as much, perhaps?

As a counter to your suggestion, I'd ask why it is that people's diabetes
improves when they loose weight?  Yes, another correlation, but one that
would seem to suggest the current model of diabets being related to obesity in
a causal fashion is on the correct track.

[/quote]

We don’t know what’s going on in there, yet. They’re pancreas may end up
being shot because it was running overtime and wore out prematurely (this is
the logic that Carbon Monoxide causes heart disease). This would explain
becoming fat as a causation of diabetes, as a theory.

Additionally, stomach staples or banding (in Europe,
predominantly) also seem to almost completely eliminate Type 2 diabetes. You’re
eating less food, you’re losing weight, your pancreas doesn’t have to work as
hard.

“Damn near everything is a "correlation" as you've defined
it.  If I have a whopping pneumonia and I take these little pills the doc
gives me and I feel better, and if a lot of people do that, there is a
correlation.”

[quote]
Agreed.  Again, though, I find myself asking at what point do you
say the preponderance of the evidence suggests that there is really is
causation?  What level of evidence is satisfactory, since it's all
correlation in the end?





And does this have anything to do with hookah anymore? :-)





E.G.





[/quote]

 

Don’t be hung up on facts. Why is it, that only in America, we are
seeking the truth or truths or facts? Why is it that we must live our lives by
facts and not probabilities? Just use your brain and make intelligent decisions
and you’ll have a happy life. I believe that, anyways…no statistical proof. We’ll
all die. That’s one irreducible fact. We’ll all end up as mush in a rotting box
or ash scattered across a landscape, untouched by our presence.

 

Yes, I am saying, essentially life is a gamble. Quit
searching for truth and start looking for answers. That Atkins guy lost all
this weight, made millions off of his diet that helped people lose weight and…he
died from slipping on the ice and cracking his head open. Maybe if he was
fatter, he would have just bounced or rolled. 



 It pertains to hookahs because some hookah smokers are
devil-may-care people. Some are hopeless addicts, hiding in their basements,
ashamed. We smoke hookah for different reasons and I hope everyone is aware
that smoking a hookah is bad for you, but I’m not going to pull bullshirt out
of the air to make my point. Anyone who wants to rain on our passion and our
happiness, that’s fine…if they want to use numbers to support it, they better
bring a bucket and some good science.