[gela]

Fact two. I never put forth a conspiracy theory, a theory is not the same thing as what you can observe in reality. Anyone can turn on TV and see millions of anti-smoking ads, and news media comments that smoking is unhealthy, that is a real conspiracy and not just a theory.

I have done science for the last 6 years of my life.
I did earth and environmental science last year, and this is one of the course outcomes:

discusses the validity and reliability of data gathered from first-hand investigations and secondary sources

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au...tg6_syl_03.pdf

This is how you asess the reliablility of a second hand source:

You check for bias.
You check the credentials of the scientists
Just in case, you check and see if some other reliable scientist got a similar result.

Here we have a situation where every scientific institution in the world agrees that smoking causes lung cancer.

There is no debate to be had.

There is no scientific way to deny that every scientist in the world is wrong.

Therefore, what you have is a conspiracy theory.

The so-called science of epidemiology is not totally trustworthy as a factual source because such studies can contain random errors, systimatic erros, and can be bias, even when they attempt to reduce those factors.

All sciences have these errors.
All sciences have ways to combat these errors.

Read back through my posts. I've already argued this point.

I don't feel like typing it all out again, it was something about different scientists with different backgrounds and different strengths and weaknesses all getting the same or similar results.
Unless you want to claim that they all had identical systematic and random errors, then this argument is useless.

Apparently you didn't get the point last type I wrote this.