On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:04:49 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

On 2/27/12 4:59 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:44:04 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 2/26/12 11:36 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 2/26/12 11:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlebeCdnXwnuLSUytfSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/26/12 10:56 AM, BAR wrote:


Where are the independently duplicated and peer reviewed research that
shows that second hand smoke causes health problems?

The medical and scientific fields are rife with incorrect conclusions,
sub-standard methods and politically driven persons.


What are your qualifications to find, understand, and judge legitimate
medical research?

You are too funny. What are you qualifications to question anyone else's
qualifications?




I think if you are going to try to challenge peer-reviewed medical
research in scientific publications, you ought to have some recognizable
qualifications.


And that might be relevant if you could show him some "peer-reviewed
medical research in scientific publications".

Why? He doesn't have the medical/scientific qualifications to judge it.
I don't, and I have two university degrees.

He didn't say he wanted to judge it. He asked where it was. He obviously would like to see it. If
one has a smattering of statistics under their belt, much legitimate medical research is
understandable - especially the conclusions.


He obviously would like someone to do his homework for him. I posted a
long, long lists of mostly scientifically acceptable URLs.

Not to start anything, but what the hell is a 'scientifically acceptable URL'?