[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela The phenomena: Disease The observation: Observing the life styles of people who suffer from a disease The Identification: Recognising common patterns in these observations Experimental Investigation: Looking into how the disease is caused by the pattern; and/or studying the health of other people who follow this pattern in life style. Theoretical Explanation: Link the Life style Pattern to the Disease. Yep.. seems like a science to me. Can't see any way or form that it isn't science. I also googled 'real science' to see if there was such a term, and I couldn't find any such thing. There have been studies taken for years and years, all over the world, done in different cultures and under different governments. Yet there is no study, anywhere, that contradicts the fact that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer. There is no more proof we can possible give. You are the one you has to disprove it now. If you want to say a widly accepted fact isn't true, then your the one who has to come up with the proof, not the rest of us, who have proved it countless times. My point was, that smokers and non smokers live in the city, and are exposed to car fumes. Yet it is still the smokers who are more likely to get lung cancer. Non smokers can also get lung cancer from the car fumes, but you are more likely to get it if you smoke. In short. No. I've already wasted enough time on this thread; I have no doubt that I could go and do it, but it would be time consuming, and I don't care that much. Besides even if I did get the exact amount you would claim it is agenda driven. DNA makes you predisposed to cancer. Its a very simple concept. If your grandmother had lung cancer, then you are more likely to develop cancer if you smoke. However, if you don't smoke, and you eat the steamed vegetables, then you can also avoide the disease. Being geneticaly disposed to a disease is just another aspect to a disease to factor in. Correct me if im wrong, but doctors also ask wether or not you smoke. Lungs do not act like a filter. Cellular respiration is the swiching of oxygen and carbon dioxide through a semi permiable membrane. The membrane is there so the blood doesn't spill into your lungs. Its semi perbiable so that cellular respiration can still occur - the CO2 can leave the blood and the Oxygen can enter the blood. The filtering effect is coincidental, your lungs are not designed to be a filter - if they were, then they would have a method of releasing what they have filtered out. And 'that disease' was Emphysema. Emphysema - Risk Factors and Causes - pulmonologychannel What was that? Theres a special name for emphasema thats caused by purley genetic reasons. Because they have a certain protein that doesn't work in there body. However, emphysema caused by cigarette smoke, in perfectly healthy lungs make up 90% of cases. Theres a difference between questioning authority, and claiming that every single scientific study into the effects of smoking are wrong, and your hunch that cancer is caused by stress, is right. Do not use the results of singular studies to prove a point about the millions of studies that have been done on smoking and its health risks. I think the rewards and the fame and the glory of finding a cure to cancer would by far outweigh the wage of continued research. Think about what you are saying there. Don't worry, this will probably be my last post on this thread. If thousands of pathological, and epidemilogical studies on smoking can't prove it to you, I doubt my debating will.

A "theoretical explaination" is not the same thing as a absolute fact. It is a speculation that may or might not be true. Based on an assumption that the chances of it being true might outweigh the evidence that the data interpretation is not supportive of an absolute fact.
AKA - guessing.

It matters not if you have 1 or 100 such speculations on 1 or 100 studies following the same guidelines. It is still just an opinion based on a what is called an educated guess.

They had experts from a number of governments saying they had proof or evidence that Saddam had WMDs. So we went to war. Later we find out it was all a big lie. The war on smokers is simular, using your manner of determining the truth.

I doubt if you can find much if you google "real science". Partly because the keyword takes you mostly to publications using that name. I should have used the term "sound science" as apposed to what has been termed "junk science".

Junk science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were many studies that said point blank that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer piror to when Reagan took office.
Then came the anti-environmentalist war spearheaded by Reagan philosophy (such as the death of the electric car in favor of oil cars) and the now famous anti-smoking agenda. Many of the research companies are funded by governmental grants, and only the research companies that found "links" to suggest that smoking causes cancer were award that grant money, and those that found no evidence to link the two got zero in futher grant money. So soon all were finding evidence. Then the anti-smoking movement made a claim that the old studies were paid for or influenced by the rich tobacco industry. Soon all evidence of such research has vanished from the internet and elsewhere that you are likely to search at. The oil industry and big name chemical companies want you to believe that all cancers, heart attacks, and what-have-you are caused by cigarette smoke, not by smog of other toxics produced as by-products of oil or certain industrial chemicals. Big oil runs Washington DC and espeically when Republicans gain power there. They do not want you to blame auto fumes, bug spary, nuclear technology or medical x-ray machines. Making people think it is all due to cigarette smoking is a big advantate to the oil and other kinds of industry that does not want to get regulated by the government under voter pressure. Wake up and smell the roses!

It is not up to me to come up with as much money as big oil to proove my point. How do you honestly expect me to get that much money? How do you expect me to run TV ads every hour to brainwash people about my stand on this so that it becomes an accepted "truth" when I cannot even afford the $3.50 a gal I must now fork our for a gal of gas?

Now you are claiming that you could care less about finding out how much tar is in the smoke of a cigarette after stateing that as an important "proof" for you side of this debate. So I will stick with my stand, the trace amount is sooooo teenie weenie that they really pose no threat but the did not give you that data because it would not scare people to know that. They gave you a scary sounding half-truth.

I am taking the stand that not smoking will not allow you to avoid an illness handed down from your grandmother via DNA (genes). The reason Doctors ask if you smoke (how come they cannot smell it on your cloths is beyond me) is because they can bill medicare and other insurance companies for their time spent advising you to stop smoking, that is easy money in their pockets. Thanks to a law from President Bush. But Bush said that any treatment to help people to stop smoking will not be paid for by insurance.

90% of the cases eh? Another stat someone invented which was then automatically repeated by everyone else. No evidence of that stat based on sound science. Let's stick with real science and not something like a poltical exit poll of voters, okay?

Do I think that fame for finding a cure would outweigh the desire for continued research money? First off the word "cure" is copyrighted and you cannot use it to promote a product without permission from governmental medical board that must authorized a drug before it is marketed. So you cannot claim a cure until you get their permisson, and who said they would give it too you? They might tell you to study it for 10 more years. Fame is important you say. Then tell me the name of the lady in Africa who found a cure for AIDS if she is so famous, before she sold the copyrights to a major drug company for three millon buck. Is she so famous that you even herd about that in the headlines of your local news source. I doubt it. You speak of fame, then tell me the name of the man who found out you can cure cancer by implanting DNA into tobacco plants? That tobacco can be used to cure cancer, ever here of that famous discovery? I doubt it. You get what the newspapers want you to get and they must worry about their advertisers who are mostly drug compaines, auto makers, and big oil.