Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjamuser
Now let me see - should I believe a government study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission OR some one person that claims to have read that very study and have found so-called definitive HOLES in it, which I have no way to verify IF that study was really read or NOT. Or how valid would be the holes in that study. Gee, I think that I will continue to believe in the study made by the US government agency rather than a ONE person claim with PERHAPS (?) NO expertise behind it. If I find out that the Government Agency has redone the study and a different result (like maybe a change to 15% of childhood asthma cases are related to gas stoves) .......then, I will believe THEM and see how that recalculates MY opinion on the subject.
|
Well then perhaps you should do YOUR research to determine if the US Goverment Agency conclusions could be flawed.
Multiple scientific and medical studies have pointed out the flaws in the CSPC conclusions. ONE example...
ScienceDirect
4. Lessons and recommendations
Some suggested lessons and recommendations from the foregoing observations are as follows.
• The causal claims that “Our study demonstrates that known mitigation strategies will lessen childhood asthma burden from gas stoves” [6] and that “Gas stove pollution causes 12.7% of childhood asthma” [8] are not supported by the data analyzed because the underlying study designs and data do not address effects of mitigations or resulting changes in childhood asthma burden.
• These claims are also not supported by the analyses performed since these analyses only quantify measures of association (ORs and PAFs derived from relative risk ratios) but not measures of preventability or of the causal impact of exposures on asthma risk.
• Alternative plausible explanations for the reported statistical associations between gas stove cooking and childhood asthma, such as confounding by poverty and substandard housing (Belanger and Triche, 2008), were ignored.
• Differences between the times, populations, settings, and locations for which data were collected and the current US were ignored in extrapolating associations – many of them estimated in European countries before 2000 – to current US populations. Yet, the underlying meta-analysis of Lin et al. noted that associations were stronger in data collected before 2000 than in more recent data.
• Because of these limitations, the projections of Gruenwald et al. that about 13% of childhood asthma in the US could be prevented by reducing or eliminating gas stove emissions have no known validity. They are not supported by the data and analyses performed.
• These limitations follow peviously identified common patterns of prevalent questionable research practices (QRPs) that undermine the reliability and validity of much of the recent research literature in applied epidemiology [5].
• By insisting on routinely asking how (or whether) these QRPs have been addressed, research authors, journal reviewers and editors, reporters, politicians, and members of the public can help to judge (and document) the extent to which causal claims of adverse health effects from exposures are well supported by data and analyses.
• A widespread habit of QRP-checking might perhaps help all parties to improve the credibility and trustworthiness of published results by systematically identifying and downplaying claims that rely on QRPs.
• Exercising such critical thinking before broadcasting and responding to sensational claims about adverse health effects caused by everyday exposures might help to reduce the social amplification of risk [9] and encourage more responsible risk research and reporting.
Viewing announcements of health effects being “linked” to (i.e., associated with) various exposures as opportunities to apply critical thinking and to check the logical validity of causal claims against well-known QRPs may help to teach the value and spread understanding of sound, critical, epidemiological reasoning about causal claims and their policy implications.
ScienceDirect