I notice that he does not cite his reference. If one is to refer to a study they should reference it. I would contact him and ask him what information he researched before making his conclusions.

Correlation is not the same as causation. The European Pooled Case Control epidemiologic studies assessed causation - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546066/pdf/bmj33000223.pdf

Thanks Bill! I'll forward to the blogger with hopes he will offer better advice in the future.

Thanks Shawn and Bill. I do not understand how Mr. Stone could have made those statements if he had actually read the report that Dr. Field has provided to us.
We'love to know if you hear back from the blogger.

There are several statements in the article Shawn references that don't match easily cited publications, and I won't get into them. I can't speak to the author's intent by "no correlation between lung cancer" [sic] but, in agreeing with Bill, I do want to emphasize that the word "correlation" may mean different things to different people. For example, some may regard correlation as meaning a strict linear relationship that holds without variation. But within the discipline of statistics, correlation (one of several necessary components in demonstrating causation) is recognized not to require that all data fall on a straight line, but only that we have adequate confidence a relationship exists. Of course, to demand that the former connotation (strict linearity) be obtained to demonstrate causation misunderstands how all science works. Those who require that kind of "proof" set up, even perhaps unwittingly, a straw man, a false test to be met.