| "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."
Why and how? What specific claims do you refer to?
"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."
No, because the pollutants in air are not in concentrated form, whereas in cigarette smoke, they are. Therefore, in a smoker, air pollution is only a minor causative factor of lung disease, but it's the major one in non-smokers.
"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."
No, for the reasons listed above, unless you're talking about occasional exposure to sidestream smoke among non-smokers. Clearly, to claim that is a major cause of illness would be a lie.
"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."
You've got it backwards. If one is a smoker, the cigarette smoke is concentrated and inhalation is forceful and deliberate, whereas inhalation of air pollution is in minute quantities. Granted, it adds up over a long period of time, but not at any greater rate than smoke.
"They have greatly over-stated the risk of smoking cigarettes"
That is not an accurate statement. You've presented no factual support of of this claim.
"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's truth to that, but it's not the reason for anti-smoking campaigns.
"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."
Okay.
"Comparing living organizems such as a virus to smoke is not a good anology. Like comparing oranges to apples."
You don't seem to understand the purpose of an analogy. The very point of it is to use a different situation to illustrate a principle.
"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."
Are you sure that wasn't just sexist exclusion of women from important rituals?
At any rate, it's not relevant to the issue under debate.
"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 )."
Interesting, but I don't know why you think any of that advances your argument, if indeed you do.
"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."
You have made claims here to historical fact. What is your source for this?
"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."
The WHO is connected to the CIA? That's quite a conspiracy theory. What would be the purpose of such a collusion?
"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."
So you refuse to admit is damages the lungs and heart at all?
You are deep in denial, and it's a sad thing to watch. You twist and turn and come up with fantastical theories in order to rationalize that denial.
I've seen it before.
Even if your rather kooky conspiracy theory had any validity, you admit yourself there have been non-agenda driven studies which showed health effects. So it's time for you to get out of denial. |