[gela]

I used to work in connection with the L.A. Natural History Musem on digs and have seen rooms full of fosils. And. as for the other areas of science that you mentioned, I can find all the data they used to to come to their conclusions. But not so relative to this topic. If the anti-smoking evidence is sound then why keep it hid so that the public cannot see it? You are resorting to the methods used by religion, who make the same claims about God, that seeing is not important, only faith. Which is fine, have your anti-smoking religion, but don't force it on me.

How nice for you.

My point remains. They are not hiding anything - all scientists only publish their results.
Again, the completely unfounded 'they are all trying to brainwash us' card. They are all hiding something from us. It is an international conspiracy.
You have still failed to explain why exactly all these countries want us to believe smoking is bad.
By the way, I'm not forcing anything on you. We're having a debate in case you haven't noticed.

I did present evidence that the anti-smoking studies can contain random errors, systimatic errors, and could be bias. And provided a link. That was not my opinon. But real scientists being honest about just how trustworthy their craft is relative to the anti-smoking studies. Some research found no links between smoking and cancer but the anti-smoking group claims the research was bias. Bias or not, the research did exsist.

Lets have some proof of this research. Did you get to see their whole method of finding things out?
Odd how you blindly accept their research - that has long been regarded biased by everyone; and yet you reject research done by governments and universities that has no connection whatsoever to anything that could be remotely biased.
Btw. Any science can contain random errors and systematic errors. That is science for you.
How do we lower the impact of these errors? Repitition.
I'm doing chemistry at university right now. We repeat all of our experiments several times, and take the average result.
Anti-smoking experiments have been done over 50 years, in all corners of the globe - and they all got very similar results.

In order for them to all be wrong, then they must all have the same random and systematic errors; and they all have to be biased equally - even though there is no logical reason for bias.

But no, I am suppose to blindly accept that all this research is biased.

Does Tobacco Money Taint Research? :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, and Views and Jobs Those involved the mission to proove that smoking is bad for you even advertise to get study groups involved, offering grant money.

This is the same for any science. Not surprised. Scientists need money to undertake experiments. Where do they get money? grants.
The same goes for any form of medical research - not just your little 'anti-smoking' men.

International Tobacco and Health Research and Capacity Building Program - Fogarty International Center Here is what you requested. A study that found no links. Friends of Tobacco Summer 1998 Friends of Tobacco Summer 1998

You really do surprise me with your blinding hypocrisy.
Universities, and Government organisations are biased. But. "Friends of Tobacco" can present a completely objective argument?
Its laughable.

2nd. You ask what are the anti-smokers hiding?
Then you post a link which refers to a study like this:

One of the world's leading health organizations has secretly published a study that shows not only that there might be no links between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect. But the World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-center, seven-country European study, has failed to make the findings public, and has instead, published only a summary of the results in an internal report. Nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings, despite repeated calls.

(Btw, I'm not going to argue against passive smoking anyway - as far as I know, its still up for debate)

I went through both links, and that is the only reference to a study I could find.
A 'secret' study on passive smoking. When the debate is about direct smoking anyway.
Awesome effort.

Here is a link where one study ( showing link ) was overturned by another study (showing no link). Study questions smoke-breast cancer link - The Boston Globe

I never even heard that smoking could cause breast cancer. What do you know, you learn something new every day.

Btw.. I just want to draw your attention to the heading:

Study questions smoke-breast cancer link Big British survey finds no evidence

Survey?
Oh, no. Surveys are biased, and have systematic and random errors. I suppose that makes this irrevelent.
Again.. the study is on passive smoking, not direct smoking.

Is that enough links, or shoud I provide more?

Since not one of them was about direct smoking; please - post more.