Quote:
Quote by: big_lefty  What studies are there which purport to show that ~only~ smoking causes cancer, and that other factors do not have an effect? I know of none, at least not any reputable ones.
If your belief rides on that, no wonder you think it's a conspiracy.
Of course industrial pollution contributes as well, to varying degrees. But that does not negate the impact of smoking.
To use another analogy, say you catch a cold because somebody with the virus touched your hand, and the virus is helped to colonize in your body by the fact that your immunity was lowered due to stress. The existence of the stress which lowered your immunity doesn't mean that your exposure to the carrier was not the primary causative factor.
I'm not sure what you mean about native cultures. Are you saying that smoking had no negative health effects in people from earlier tribal societies? If so, what do you base that on?
I'm also getting that you're saying the mere existence of an anti-smoking agenda means that all research which shows harm from smoking is tainted. Firstly, that does not logically follow. Secondly, you are forgetting that the anti-smoking agenda exists ~because~ of the belief that it causes harm. In essence, the original studies created the agenda rather than the other way around. Perhaps some of the subsequent studies were agenda-driven, but so what? The originals had the same finding. |
It would negate the claims made by most anti-smoking advocates and would negate the phoney anti-smoking advertisements shown on TV which air constantly.
That is because air polution from cars and industry is the major cause of unhealthy air, where as cigarette smoke would be extremely minor. Tobacco smoke compared to transportation polution is like a penny compared to a million dollars.
Therefore the anti-smoking people are giving a false impression when they make claims that smoking is some sort of major cause for poor air-quality that might be linked to cancer in persons genetically prone to get cancer anyway.
For example: If we did not have the massive amonts of air polution caused by industry and transportation polution then the mild amounts caused by tobacco smoke would even be a problem.
They have greatly over-stated the risk of smoking cigarettes instead of directing focus on the major poluters. Per reason that the economy presently is oil dependant and those addicted to money want to keep it that way.
There are no health records that were kept by Native Americans prior to the time pioneers from the old world arrived here. Especially relative to heart attacks or cancer. Therefore that cannot be confirmed. Therefore that is not what I was suggesting.
Comparing living organizems such as a virus to smoke is not a good anology. Like comparing oranges to apples.
I pointed out already some of the reports are not agenda based and I noted which ones. Women stopped taking part in religious riturals where smoking, or other more potant drugs were used, ages ago in nearly all shaministic tribes, because of potential health risks relative to birthing children. Only the men took part. Likewise traditional shaman riturals did not allow children to take part until they were old enough to take part in a rite-of-passage ritural. I would respect and honor those time-tested traditions which resulted over a long span of generational useage ( of item under debate ).
The agenda based fact-finding began when Reagan was President. At the time when they wanted to defuse the impact that environmentalists were having in getting poltical regulations effected on industry, and in particular the auto and oil industry, who at the time feared class action law suits. So alarmed when IBM had to pay out millions in one court settlement.
At the time they had 20 studies that found no link between smoking and cancer, but one report suggested a possible link, so they cherry picked that one study to make the first claim, and offered grant money to research companies who could back up that study. In the first study they over-dosed white mice with massive amounts of tobacco smoke and injected them with chemicals found in tobacco and some of the mice got cancer. Then deducted that tobacco products might cause cancer in humans as well. Then they claimed that the studies that found no links were bias because they were funded by the tobacco people. While allowing their own biased studies to get credit because they were done via governmental grants. Using epidemiology to prove their case while knowing full well that such studies can be manipulated.
It would logically follow because the government does this all the time, take for example the Iraq war, they presented congress with a lot of so-called intelligence gathering stats and cherry picked facts to prove that Saddam had a nuclear program that could be completed in a manner of months. Agenda based politcal activities are the norm for Washington DC. The World Health Organization which was likewise connected to monies from the CIA via Congress got involved to pursue that agenda.
Objective of agenda - do not blame industry, blame the citizen smoker.
There are side effects to smoking.
1. yellow stains.
2. a shortness of breath if the person also has a poor diet and little physical activity.
3. addicton.
4. potential for accidental fires.
5. phycological dependancy on tobacco to deal with stress.