Smoking Does NOT Cause Cancer (Or At Least We Can't Say That It Does)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- What would you say if I told you that we can't say that smoking causes cancer? It's true, and the tobacco companies were able to use that to their advantage for decades. The reason is because of ethics and inferences. Clint explains some essential aspects of experimental design that are required to determine causation, and not just correlation.
#clintexplains #statistics #experimentaldesign - Наука та технологія
I think Clint is at his best when he talks about disregarding ethics:)
They only get in the way...
@@clintexplains5327 Ther is so much we could learn about behaviour as well, if we disregarded ethics.
Interesting timing. We just had a similar conversation a few days ago.
It can be a mix of things what cause cancer. Lots of smokers more often get it after age 40
I love the little endorphin rush that comes with learning something new! It feels like I'm back in one of my bio classes in college.
As a smoker for 5o years who wasn't killed by cancer, I could not say for definite that the bladder cancer that took my kidney was caused by smoking but....as someone who belatedly saw the light, I can say for definite how much my life has improved since giving up all smoking. (weed as well).
13yrs here
taste, smell, and wallet appreciated the lifestyle change 😇
@@jonniefast And that crap feeling of being under somethings cosh. In one sense I feel that the addiction blocks us from a full and complete sense of self, not to mention worth. Good on you mate, keep on keeping on. Peace.
@@liammurphy2725 💕
I love this channel because even though it isn't Clint's more popular channel he still puts so much effort into each video as if each is a passion project on his behalf.
If I remember correctly, the closest we have to an actual study on this came from Nazi Germany using Jewish folks. Ethics wasn't really an issue in their minds as they saw my people as lab rats and used us in plenty of other experiments.
Either way, it was conducted at a hospital by a well-renowned (by Nazis) doctor at the time. The experimental design was well done. I don't think they managed a placebo, but I may be wrong. The conclusion was that yes, smoking does cause cancer...
But because their sample only included Jewish people, the inference can only really be made that smoking causes cancer in Jews.
We're just prone to cancer. The smoking was coincidence :P
Hitler was so neurotic about smoking that he banned his generals at the berghof from lighting up in his presence for fear it he would develop illness. And he backed a doctor whos treatment of syphilis involved giving malaria to patients as treatment. The third reich was a haven for barbaric psuedoscience
@@nathanielleack4842 Malaric fever induces temperatures high enough to kill Treponema pallidum, the bacteria that causes the syphilis infection. A lack of antibiotic knowledge doesn't make the best known treatment barbaric pseudoscience.
Awesome video! If you want a fun reptile related conundrum to discuss you should look at whether antivenin is vegan? Also how effective/ efficient is it to artificially synthesise them instead of using horses? I’ve had this discussion with a few people recently and it was interesting!
Also Shelby could make an appearance as a venomous snake and we all need more Shelby content in our lives
My favourite statistic is that if you have margarine in your fridge then you will get divorced. If you overlay both sales of margarine and divorce rates in Maine in the US. They match.
Can confirm 😌 my mother always bought margarine, wound up divorced. I’ve never bought margarine, never been divorced 😂
Why?
Is it because poor people get divorced and buy margerine
@@user-xj8wy4uu1q there is correlation but the causation is most likely boredom, affairs, laziness, abuse or grown apart. But because the rates of divorce match the procurement of margarine you could theorise that butter = happy marriage. The take away is correlation does not equal causation
@@katelillo1932 in which case it does correlate. We will need to check a bigger sample size
Thank you, Clint, for expanding the way I think about things. Remember when "Challenge Everything" was used so frequently? Not far from the truth.
You're awesome Clint!!
This is such a good way to explain concepts for all ages. Thanks again i am definitely using these videos to show to teach friends and their kids.
Interesting line of thought... I’ll continue not smoking just to be safe lol
Seems reasonable.
Yeah, had cancer as a kid, I do *not* want to ever risk that again. I never even considered smoking as a teenager.
@@clintexplains5327 I think smoking does because lots of things can cause cancer
Don’t smoke, kids! 🚭
This was great, Clint!
Good advice!
Please don't smoke the kids, find a nice piece of pork or salmon.
@@ryancooper5647 Smoked herring. Yum yum.
Beliefs in the mind can affect epigenetic modulation of genes.
5:30 I mean, people who smoke do also think that they're smoking, so I think it would be pretty reasonable to include the result of thinking you're smoking as a result of smoking, as smoking does make people think they're smoking.
I discovered this channel randomly. Clint should talk more about it in his more famous channel.
WOOOOO HOOOOOO! I'm gonna start up again... sees price of cigarettes these days up here🇨🇦, ..... nevermind
I really really really really really really really really look forward to when you can tackle pathogens on this channel. We've known about IBD/Arena for 50 years, C. Serpentis across dozens of species for decades, what we now call serpentoviruses for almost a decade, ... are leopard geckos all plagued with C. Serpentis? Is it only PetSmart Leos? Is it only a problem because the only people visiting the vet with their geckos are the ones that are suffering disease from C. Serpentis?
the thing is. if you can create a harmless placebo. why would people not just start smoking the placebo normaly if it tastes like tobacco.
This was great!
I'm curious though, isn't there a threshold where an abundance of 'correlational' evidence becomes so overwhelming that 'causational' becomes the most useful model in science moving forward?
Like are we saying it's a 50/50 chance or 1000000000000/1? Because that's a big difference...and a meaningful difference.
I'd love to hear Clint's thoughts on how science deals with this on a practical level.
Excellent question. Much social science, in fact, has to work this way. There is no deductive component like, feed these 1000 kids salad for five years, another 1000 McDonalds for five years, make sure they exercise the same amount, then record the results. Best sociology and economics can do is make comparisons based on broad observations.
At some point, though, the correlation becomes strong enough that a perfect study isn't really necessary. I think we are there with smoking. Given that the possible benefits of smoking are far less than the probable problems, concluding that smoking is the worse choice is completely reasonable, even if the perfect proof is not yet possible.
Overall very good, but I think it’s important to note that past a certain point, as long as your population is relatively homogenous you don’t actually need more that 1,200-1,800 respondents. The amount of statistical power you gain after these sample sizes drops precipitously; a 50,000 person sample is only slightly more representative than an 1,800 person sample.
Even if your population is heterogeneous, the solution is stratifying (taking several small 800-1,200 person samples based on those differences), not a massive sample.
1:14 --- Clint switches to mad scientist mode.
I would just like to point out that cancer, while not least of smokers worries, is only one of those worries. Something that is tied very clearly to smoking is emphysema. Anyone who knows someone with emphysema knows what a horror that is. Breathing, but not getting enough oxygen. A slow death by drowning. There are many other conditions associated with smoking. The best time to quit smoking is right now. I know it is difficult, having smoked for near thirty years, but I know it can be done. The sooner the better.
Never thought about that…
I have that same tie
So what causes mouth cancer
Unique and fun, if only you could travel back in time to be in the anti smoking ads with R2 D2 and C3P0
I'll skip the video and take it that Clint recommends smoking
Probably a bad plan.
@@clintexplains5327 What about the Vape? Too many "young" people seem to think that "the electronic cigar" is harmless... or at least less harmful than "actual cigars" i.e. tobacco. (I do not know the English names for these Vapes so I have been "google translating" the Icelandic words into English)
@@gubjorggisladottir3525 vape is correct. They’re also called electronic cigarettes.
@@clintexplains5327 😁
Great video, yet again, Clint. However, at 6:04 your last sentence contains two spelling errors. You have "demonsrtae" and "increaed" instead of "demonstrate" and "increased". Oh, and one word (twice) in the first sentence, you have "earth" but it is the name of our planet thus it commands a capital letter "Earth".
Pedantry has a peculiar smell to it. Give the guy a break.
@@liammurphy2725 Pedantry if you will, I call it peer review, and science go hand in hand. I was giving constructive criticism not complaint.
It's interesting to think about how this logic applies to other things, such as [that thing you're not supposed to question the safety of on youtube]
WOW!
Never has never will. My entire family smoked and my lord the breathing issues and allergies!
Seriously don’t start. It’s not worth it.
Nice explaination of correleation vs. causation and about ideal design of scientific studies. Nevertheless, it is a bit missleading in regards to the scientific method. Established scientific "facts" are not based on a single study but on multiple lines of evidence. A double-blind randomized controlled study (ore more than one) is not the only or the typical way to come to the legitimate conclution, that something is or is not a scientificly established thing, that can be called a fact.
For the smoking and cancer we have the strong correlation in humans, we have statistical evidence from animal models, we have data for altered gene regulation in humans (after they start smoking) with changes that are associated with cancer and we have studies of the effects of cigarette smoke in cellculture of human cells, there are multiple studies on the effects of various compounds of cigarette smoke and much more.
On the other hand NO statistic analysis can definitely proof something. The "significance"-value in studies is based on a calculation, how propable it is, that the observed difference would occur by random chance.
And it gets worse: Basically everything in biology is significantly different, if the samplesize is large enough. Statistical significance does not tell you, if a difference is big enough to be meaningful. There are readouts in statistics to address this question, but the interpretation of those is not carved in stone.
So, at the end of the day, we do not call (biological) stuff that is demonstrated by an ideal study a "scientific fact"* but such things, where muliple lines of evidence support the same conclusion and where nothing disprooves it, though scientist allready tried to do so. So: Yes, we can and should say, that smoking causes cancer, even though there is no single line of evidence which can definitely proove it. There never is. For nothing.
*Technically we do not say "fact" but we call it a "theory"- which is the closest thing to a fact, which science knows, but for the public that is also misleading, because to many people think, that a theory is "just a theory" (and mean: just a hypothesis). So I stick with "fact" for the purpose of this comment.
This video is not about facts or theories, though I do think you should watch that one: ua-cam.com/video/-a0lbottoPA/v-deo.html
This video is about statistical inferences.
@@clintexplains5327 Thanks, that is also a great video and explains the scientific terms easier and more accurate, than I did in my comment. Maybe I should have made my point without going into details about that.
The point was: Science CAN say that "smoking causes cancer" (and other stuff where double-blind controlled studies are impossible or were just not jet performed) because the basis for scientific knowledge is not such a single study (even though that is a good element of science) but a much broader approach which conciders multiple lines of evidence.
Of cause that was also not the topic of the video. But that is the point, where it is missleading in regards to the question how science works. And it is wrong about the question, if we can - based on science - say that smoking causes cancer. Yes, science can say that and science does say that - for good reasons.
I never said anything about double-blind studies. The key was random assignment to treatments. Without that you cannot make casual statistical inferences.
@@clintexplains5327 No, indeed, I added that (because it is a quality-feature), but what I said applies to studies with random assignment to treatments and even studies in more general: They are neither sufficient nor absolutely necessary for science to come to conclusions, while you stated (as an examle), that we cannot say that "smoking causes cancer" because no such study was performed. And that is untrue for the smoking-issue as it is untrue for many other scientific questions. I am (almost) sure, that you did not want to imply that it is unscientific to say that smoking causes cancer or to state that there is such a thing like evolution or that there is human made climate change (which is also not possible to proof via a study with random assigned treatments.
When I first saw the title I thought that a few days with Emily & her false water cobra had driven you to taking up a nicotine addiction. 😄
Know quite a few people who have smoked all their lives, but the only time it has had a really bad effect on them is after they stopped. Ideally don't smoke, but if you've been doing it for a few decades, it is often safer to keep going!
That does not make sense. The logic is flawed. A person having health problems after quitting smoking is not likely to have gotten them BECAUSE they stopped.
@@ltlbuddha just from own elderly family members who were in quite good health for their age, then took medical advise of quitting smoking, and saw ailments begin to develop. Just know with my grandmother I was present when the doctors said her bronchitis, emphysema, & ultimately the lung cancer that killed her were not present a year prior when she was there for a checkup & was a smoker! Something to do with after smoking for such a long period, your body develops to rely on the chemicals you are inhaling. Sure if they died today there would be different causes of death, but that was certainly hers in the late 90's, and from what I've been told about other grandparents that died prior to that, it was similar for them too.
@@rikrob Funny, then, that the research indicates just the opposite. Quitting appears to increase life span.
Rubbish
Paid for by the good hard working folks at Phillip Morris.
I tell folks ok let’s take cancer off the board.
Let’s have a foot or a exercise bike race with a non smoker vs a smoker with the same demographics and dimensions . I’m almost certain the smoker will be about to pass out once complete. They’ll be drenched in sweat that’s double than the other person.
I will now be ignoring the actual content of this video and going to buy another pack of lucky strikes
L.M.F.T.
Tobacco has additives that may or may not increase the risk of cancer when its inhaled. The tobacco industry and health departments doesnt like to talk about this. If you ask them this question they will send you a link or not reply at all
It can be a mix of things what cause cancer
UA-cam recommended a Tucker Carlson anti-vaxx rant to me after I clicked on this video. Looks like UA-cam made certain (wrong) inferences about my interests based on the video title. XD
It does not cause cancer with everyone. Because some smokers live to be 90. But some people do get cancer from smoking
I know quite a few people who were smokers who got cancer and died.
I know quite a few people who never smoked who got cancer and died.
I heard them say that 1 out of 2 people will end up getting cancer anyway
@@bennewman4675 i think the #1 reason for so much cancer is the crazy amount of sugar the average American consumes 24/7
@@adamv4951 probably
More people die from heart disease related to smoking then cancer. And I don't think he can say they don't cause COPD
There's a lot of similarities between the smoking 'debate' and arguments against climate change. In that case, it's experimentally impossible to test for anthropogenic climate change (as we'd need to be able to replicate the earth many, many times over to get a sample group). However, the observational evidence we have that there is a really strong correlation, a mechanical explanation of the phenomenon (increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution trapping more heat), so the odds are very strong (As in, over 99% chance) that human activity is causing climate change. However, the fact that climate change cannot be experimentally tested is often used as a way to devalue the evidence that climate change is real and happening.
Even if you do all that you said, you still don’t have causation. Causation a property of models not something observable in the world. In the world the best we can get is “granger causation” which is just a type of correlation.
You forget to mention it takes 30 years to show up as cancer. Add in a timeline.
Handsome man
Causes a risk factor? How silly. You don't cause a risk factor. No amount of epidemiology will ever yield a cause. To find a cause you need a mechanism. In other words real science. And I'm not talking about a hypothetical possible mechanism. Like with heart disease.
I mean if we had a placebo that would cause people to think they are smoking but doesn't harm them in any way is a way to completely solve this ussiue right? I mean just replace all sigaretts with those and you saved millions of lives😅
Possibly. I'd need to do this study first. Maybe just thinking that you're smoking increases your risk of cancer, right?
Cigarettes
@@clintexplains5327 Some people don't think tobacco gives them cancer. Some people think its more likely what they add. Increases risk is a bit different from causes cancer
You’d also need to control for assigned sex at birth, race, income, location, body size, diet, exposure to chemicals… not easy!
smoking causes cancer. there, i said it.
this was fun, we should do it more often.
It can be a mix of things. Lots of smokers get cancer after age 40 to 60
I smoke 10 on Saturday...ya once in a week
Check ur immunity...immunity comes from good food...and rest excercise etc..then no cancer
...other than hereditary
What about COPD or heart disease. Or a heart attack ?
This is about cancer.
@@adamv4951 But can they say smoking does not cause other things as well ?
@@bennewman4675 i guess not for this video as his focus is on cancer statistics. Heart disease is another interesting one. Who's to say that's not more diet related? Smoking has decreased big time but heart disease continues to skyrocket.
@@adamv4951 Well some people don't think its the tobacco what gives them cancer. Some people think its more to do with what they add to cigarettes. What gives them cancer
Hasn't anyone done this in mice?
Mice aren't people, so you can't make inferences about people based solely upon studies on mice.
@@clintexplains5327 True
Smoking was shown to reduce 100% fatality rate in mice exposed to radiation to only 60% in a 1950s study. This study happened accidentally when mice from a study trying to induce cancer were give the equivalent of 200 cigarettes a day (none of the mice got cancer)
Norm brought me here
Cancer does not cause cancer
So if they didn't smoke. Some of them people might have sill got cancer sooner or later anyway. Maybe from something else ?
Good thing I don’t smoke. But I pray that others don’t because of the strong correlation between it and cancer
Yes it does it causes mutations
I really enjoy most of what you do, but you’ve really missed the mark with your framing here. It seems like an attempt at a “cute” way to frame a discussion about developing experiments- only you’ve chosen one of the least “cute” examples possible.
The tobacco industry’s manipulation of “science” to create doubt about the ill effects of smoking was morally reprehensible and lead to massive human tragedy over the span of decades. Other companies are now following the same script- see, for example, DuPont, 3M and the effects of PFOA/PFOS in our drinking water. Or the food industry trying to obscure the harmful effects of sugar.
Double-blind studies aren’t the only way to prove causation- not sure why you are presenting them that way. For example, the biological mechanisms through which chemicals introduced to the body through smoking cause cancer are well studied and documented.
"For example, the biological mechanisms through which chemicals introduced to the body through smoking cause cancer are well studied and documented."
Good point.
Pickles and drowning may have been a better example.
@@waverindarkness3385 Oh? I don't know that one.
@@malusignatius In short, there’s a correlation between eating pickles and drowning. But pickles don’t cause drowning - it’s that people tend to eat pickles in the summer and swim in the summer.
@@waverindarkness3385 Ah right... That's rather interesting.
Smoking doesn't CAUSE cancer, it simply increases the risk.
Smoking also doesn't KILL you.
Therefore, why are tobacco companies allowed to CLAIM these to be true?
Thats misrepresentation of your product.
People are more prone to cancer when their older. Lots of smokers get cancer after 50
I know some very old smokers...they blame cigarettes to cover the radiation that's still killing since the atomic bomb..
.
I always wondered about this. There would he alot more ppl with cancer wouldnt there be? Think about all the 3rd world tabacco smokers.
depends on what you smoke 💨
car exhaust/ smog is probably worse for you
not to mention roundup ready gmo corn/soy
obviously dont smoke your head off
but if you must, choose a natural brand and smoke rarely
🤗
Probably avoid inhaling smoke wherever possible.
@@clintexplains5327 As a lifelong cyclist (never owned an auto) I cam safely say it's almost impossible to avoid inhaling particulate matter when on the road. And on the subject of smoke, did you ever come across the study that investigated how dangerous bonfires can be?
@@clintexplains5327 i could never in good faith, say that its 100% ok to inhale the crude combustion particles of a plant / but life is much better with an occasional earthly delight; if it helps your overall well-being im all for it -but definitely always try to remember that what consumes your thoughts can quickly take control of your life.
always live addiction free 💖
If you're going to go this deep on pedantics why not just look at the fact that true random doesn't exist once there's human intervention.
Here first ha
🏅
@@clintexplains5327 It could be a mix of the age. Lots of smokers get cancer after age 40 to 60
Darn those pesky ethical considerations stifling scientific progress! (joke)
I think the difference between smoking tobacco, and cannabis are substantial. Tobacco is much more detrimental to health.
In general, smoke of any source is detrimental to one’s health, especially respiratory health. For cannabis, ingestion would be a healthier alternative.