nms
Well-Known Member
We don't know the specifics in the sense you're talking about regarding how tobacco is harming people. The physical process by which it happens is not known. It is based on statistics. And in statistics you isolate variables and attribute a relationship between them. I did not describe a process neither for tobacco nor for weed because the human body is too complex.
Regardless, there are tons of proposed ways this happens, some even attempt to decypher a relationship between tobacco use and your lungs microbiome. This is just so you realize the depth of interactions that happen in your body.
Reliability of a statistical study relies on the samples taken and the ability to isolate from other variables generally some are comorbidities, other personal and medical related.
Had you any experience on the development of pharmaceuticals you'd figure in general statistics is how they're deemed effective or uneffective(ever since they're tested on animals) because it's not possible to exactly define the process by which they interact with an organism as complex as animals are. We just need to be able to recognize and properly evaluate symptoms. The rest is hypothesized in a very broad form generally trying to target processes we know.
This doesn't mean we have no clue as to how a given medicine works. We are aware generally aware of the general mechanics by which something works. For instance immunotherapy for cancer patients, a state of the art treatment that is at the top of the line of what we can do. We are aware of what antibodies are and how they connect to antigens in cancer cells causing white cells to attack them, but given the resulting complexity of interactions, and the unknown antigens involved, the effectiveness of such treatment is still small. This is due to lack of knowledge. So how do we know it is effective? We treat x patients and if we see reduced symptoms in a percentage of them, then that's the effectiveness of the treatment.
Not only is the measurement of effectiveness based on statistics but the side effects are also accounted in such form. This is why if you read the paper that comes with your medicine you'll see the side effects measures in a statistical form, generally in the form of the common, rare and very rare attributed to different scales:
Ibuprofen example
https://www.hpra.ie/img/uploaded/swedocuments/PIL-2184772-20012017111614-636205077751693750.pdf)
If you think it's possible to know how these happen, you're very mistaken. The human body is far too complex and we still find new details on how the most important processes in it work, let alone knowing the full extent of any external interaction.
If I am wrong, then link to me an article that shows the exact effects by which tobacco smoke harms your lungs. (please take your time to research, because you'll find many proposed ways in many different generally inconclusive or highly targeted articles).
Still we have no doubts that tobacco harms your lungs. That is because we have statistical evidence. You can ignore it, but it's measurable. Does it mean you'll be on the unlucky side of the balance? No, but it means you have an higher risk of being there than a non consumer. Risk does not mean it will happen, people still make money off casinos, but casinos are still profitable. They work based on risk assessment. On the big picture they always win.
Science is not made of absolutes, it builds nothing but a model with predictive value for our reality. That model is not absolute nor is it made to endure dualisms, it's just a more or less accurate representation that allows us to predict things within it's context. No model is free of error(uncertainty). Luckily through repeated experimentation we can get an idea of what that error is so we can achieve a reliable model of reality.
Regardless, there are tons of proposed ways this happens, some even attempt to decypher a relationship between tobacco use and your lungs microbiome. This is just so you realize the depth of interactions that happen in your body.
Reliability of a statistical study relies on the samples taken and the ability to isolate from other variables generally some are comorbidities, other personal and medical related.
Had you any experience on the development of pharmaceuticals you'd figure in general statistics is how they're deemed effective or uneffective(ever since they're tested on animals) because it's not possible to exactly define the process by which they interact with an organism as complex as animals are. We just need to be able to recognize and properly evaluate symptoms. The rest is hypothesized in a very broad form generally trying to target processes we know.
This doesn't mean we have no clue as to how a given medicine works. We are aware generally aware of the general mechanics by which something works. For instance immunotherapy for cancer patients, a state of the art treatment that is at the top of the line of what we can do. We are aware of what antibodies are and how they connect to antigens in cancer cells causing white cells to attack them, but given the resulting complexity of interactions, and the unknown antigens involved, the effectiveness of such treatment is still small. This is due to lack of knowledge. So how do we know it is effective? We treat x patients and if we see reduced symptoms in a percentage of them, then that's the effectiveness of the treatment.
Not only is the measurement of effectiveness based on statistics but the side effects are also accounted in such form. This is why if you read the paper that comes with your medicine you'll see the side effects measures in a statistical form, generally in the form of the common, rare and very rare attributed to different scales:
Ibuprofen example
https://www.hpra.ie/img/uploaded/swedocuments/PIL-2184772-20012017111614-636205077751693750.pdf)If you think it's possible to know how these happen, you're very mistaken. The human body is far too complex and we still find new details on how the most important processes in it work, let alone knowing the full extent of any external interaction.
If I am wrong, then link to me an article that shows the exact effects by which tobacco smoke harms your lungs. (please take your time to research, because you'll find many proposed ways in many different generally inconclusive or highly targeted articles).
Still we have no doubts that tobacco harms your lungs. That is because we have statistical evidence. You can ignore it, but it's measurable. Does it mean you'll be on the unlucky side of the balance? No, but it means you have an higher risk of being there than a non consumer. Risk does not mean it will happen, people still make money off casinos, but casinos are still profitable. They work based on risk assessment. On the big picture they always win.
Science is not made of absolutes, it builds nothing but a model with predictive value for our reality. That model is not absolute nor is it made to endure dualisms, it's just a more or less accurate representation that allows us to predict things within it's context. No model is free of error(uncertainty). Luckily through repeated experimentation we can get an idea of what that error is so we can achieve a reliable model of reality.
Last edited:
I've done meditation before and found it working,really don't know why i stopped..but i'm on that meditation track again and it helps.
.
