You also think there isn't sufficient evidence to link tobacco smoking with lung cancer. You don't think there's sufficient scientific proof for anything. It gets **** old.
Sky, I can only guess you are referring to the time I posted text from a graduate level statistics textbook pointing out that an observational study involving associations between cigarette smoking and diseases could not be used to say that smoking causes cancer. That wasn't me saying that. It was the author of the statistics textbook. And it's the truth. In statisics, cause and effect cannot be inferred without a controlled experiment. Period. End of discussion.
There are plenty of things for which there is sufficient scientific "proof." For instance: We can say that pseudoephedrine has a decongestant effect. And we can say that because the manufacturers of the drug had to obtain controlled experiments to infer the effect. We could also easliy do something like "prove" that Miracle Grow has a positive effect on plant growth.
But sometimes it's not so easy. And the fact that it's not easy to design or implement a controlled experiment to infer an effect doesn't make the rule go away.
It's like I said before. Sometimes a point is reached where as a practical matter you can say, "OK, I don't need a contrlled experiment." Like you don't need a controlled experiment to conclude that shooting someone can kill them. There is a very obvious, dramatic physical effect that can be directly observed. But something like saying you have some health condition because you were exposed to "toxic dust" from the WTC incident isn't like that.
