What's the point of smoking?

[gela]

Where did you come up with the idea that the studies you advocated are done with 90% accuracy? And that all other studies done with real scicnce in the lab and with the so-called science of epidemilogy are wrong, or are not as "obvious" if they did not point the finger at tobacco? I hear a little bias in your claims.

You've misunderstood what Im saying.

I don't mean the accuracy is 90%; I mean that the studies find that 90% of lung cancer patients have smoked.
I think I posted the site with that stat at the beggining of the thread..

Im saying that if 90% of lung cancer patients also had ongoing stress, then it would have been looked into.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela You've misunderstood what Im saying. I don't mean the accuracy is 90%; I mean that the studies find that 90% of lung cancer patients have smoked. I think I posted the site with that stat at the beggining of the thread.. Im saying that if 90% of lung cancer patients also had ongoing stress, then it would have been looked into.

Well then, show us the questions they used and what all they looked into with that study.. so we can find out if you are right.

If "we the public" must take their word for it on faith, then you might as blame it on the Devil. that would sound more religious.

How can those 90% of people escape from being exposed to everyday stress, car fumes, dust, water droplets in the air, or even industrial polution? Where did they find such a study group that would not be exposed to those things on a daily bases? On the moon?

Who could possibly be so isolated when such polutions have drifted on air currents all over the globe.

Your epidemiology studies are done to collect stats based on life styles so what do you mean they "would look into that"? And then censor that data from the stats? They are not lab scientists, they are not biologists, they are not phychologists, they have no background for looking into it. They are collecting stats, and so-called percentages.
Taking polls. You are trying to turn those guys into the Saints of Science. And expect everyone to bow down to their divine like truths.

They might have looked into it, these blind leaders of the blind, but I want to see the questions used and check out if they are bias or not. What if they looked the other way?

All anyone offers are the claims, but no pudding.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: big_lefty Now I've heard everything. You're actually claiming that the more studies which establish a fact there are, the less the fact is established? By your reasoning, the world is actually flat, because many researchers have concluded, repeatedly, that it is round. Why would they have bothered to repeat the research otherwise, according to your theory?

Yes, that would be a good interpretation of what I said.

My remark was directed at epidemiology mainly and not sound sciene.

I would reason that if the first guy, with his three boats, proved his theory was correct, more "researchers" were not needed to re-prove what was already known, the world is not flat.

No one had to make 600 studies or experiments to prove that the world is not flat. They did not have to show the Queen their physics. They made one trip and came back with some stuff form the new world.

Having overcome their fear (of falling off the edge) many others followed and in short order they had the global map. But not to prove what the first guy had already demonstrated.

That was a silly anology in my opinion, try another one.

If my wife were to bake a cake because a cook book said it would taste good, all I would need is one bite to proove that the cookbook was correct, not 600 cakes.

Geeez.

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul If my wife were to bake a cake because a cook book said it would taste good, all I would need is one bite to proove that the cookbook was correct, not 600 cakes. Geeez.

Then by that reasoning you should only need ONE study that says smoking is bad to believe it. Give it up already, this senseless assertion that inhaling smoke doesn't adversely effect your health is making you look bad.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Techno About the Plague.... I doubt if blowing smoke in God's face would help out much. I don't think those events really happened anyway.

You're in denial about an awful lot of things, aren't you?

To put it bluntly, they did. Ask yourself where the childrens' rhyme 'ring-a-ring of roses' came from. Ask yourself why the population of Europe halved in the Middle Ages. Ask yourself why we can see villages on maps produced during earlier cencuses that simply disappeared during the plague, and are now gone apart from the odd inscribed stone or two as they were burnt down once all the occupants were dead.

To put it simply, Techno, your arguments are built on shifting sands. Cold hard facts are proving you wrong.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite Then by that reasoning you should only need ONE study that says smoking is bad to believe it. Give it up already, this senseless assertion that inhaling smoke doesn't adversely effect your health is making you look bad.

I have no objection to people believing in some report, or if they give up smoking because of a report. I object to a constant bombardment of such reports because that amounts to brainwashing the public.

Also proving that the earth was flat was not the result an epidemilogy study, they used a much more trustworthy method.

To suggest that I will look bad or that I will be unpopular is "peer pressure" which is the same thing people blame smoking on.

Comparing oranges to apples is not the best way for you to win a debate.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W You're in denial about an awful lot of things, aren't you? To put it bluntly, they did. Ask yourself where the childrens' rhyme 'ring-a-ring of roses' came from. Ask yourself why the population of Europe halved in the Middle Ages. Ask yourself why we can see villages on maps produced during earlier cencuses that simply disappeared during the plague, and are now gone apart from the odd inscribed stone or two as they were burnt down once all the occupants were dead. To put it simply, Techno, your arguments are built on shifting sands. Cold hard facts are proving you wrong.

I admit that I do not know a lot about the Middle Ages or about any proof that the Bible was right concerning those curses that Moses (or whoever) put on Eqypt. Shifiting the debate to that topic puts this duck of it's water. so to speak.

The actural topic I was debating is why people smoke in spite of the fact that the so-called science of epidemiology claimed that smoking is unhealthy. I do not see how events happening in the Middle Ages can prove that epidemiology studies are correct about their claims, when they will not even show us the cold hard facts that they say they base their claim on.

How can I be in denial of a study if I cannot even review how it was done?

Why do other souces say that epidemilogy is not sound science because it can be corupted with bias, or by systematic and random errors, why is everyone in denial of those hard cold facts?

They estimate that the risk of disease is 2.2 greater among persons exposed then persons unexposed (with a 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.7, ) or for each unit change in exposure, meaning the risk of disease rises by 5 cases per 1000 people per year (with 95% confidence interval of 1.2 to 8.8). Quanitative terms that are not qualitative. Simplification into a dichotomous result.

A study based on ether statistical tests or some arbitrary subjective judgment about the magnitude of association ( real or important ) hinders the goal of quanitative, objective evaluation. A standard for sound science.

What is the null hypothesis being used as a benchmark (in each study)? Did the study focus on acutually proving the disproving the null hypothesis?

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul I admit that I do not know a lot about the Middle Ages or about any proof that the Bible was right concerning those curses that Moses (or whoever) put on Eqypt. Shifiting the debate to that topic puts this duck of it's water. so to speak. The actural topic I was debating is why people smoke in spite of the fact that the so-called science of epidemiology claimed that smoking is unhealthy. I do not see how events happening in the Middle Ages can prove that epidemiology studies are correct about their claims, when they will not even show us the cold hard facts that they say they base their claim on. How can I be in denial of a study if I cannot even review how it was done? Why do other souces say that epidemilogy is not sound science because it can be corupted with bias, or by systematic and random errors, why is everyone in denial of those hard cold facts?

Perhaps if one were to make certain inquiries into the funding of these sources one would realize that money talks. Wake up from dreamland where big tobacco is your friend and the evil scientists want to make it bad for you.

They estimate that the risk of disease is 2.2 greater among persons exposed then persons unexposed (with a 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.7, ) or for each unit change in exposure, meaning the risk of disease rises by 5 cases per 1000 people per year (with 95% confidence interval of 1.2 to 8.8). Quanitative terms that are not qualitative. Simplification into a dichotomous result. A study based on ether statistical tests or some arbitrary subjective judgment about the magnitude of association ( real or important ) hinders the goal of quanitative, objective evaluation. A standard for sound science. What is the null hypothesis being used as a benchmark (in each study)? Did the study focus on acutually proving the disproving the null hypothesis?

Didn't you just say that you were unable to review these tests? Yet here you are making judgments about things that you yourself said you were unable to review because you don't have the data. How about you come up with something that isn't pure conjecture on your part.

You can fling all the tobacco backed sources and bullshit facts you want at people, it doesn't make the lungs of a smoker any less black. Of course I'm sure you think thats some sort of conspiracy too.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite Perhaps if one were to make certain inquiries into the funding of these sources one would realize that money talks. Wake up from dreamland where big tobacco is your friend and the evil scientists want to make it bad for you. Didn't you just say that you were unable to review these tests? Yet here you are making judgments about things that you yourself said you were unable to review because you don't have the data. How about you come up with something that isn't pure conjecture on your part. You can fling all the tobacco backed sources and bullshit facts you want at people, it doesn't make the lungs of a smoker any less black. Of course I'm sure you think thats some sort of conspiracy too.

I did trace the information I used, it came from a book about the science of epidemiology which was published by the Oxford Univerity Press.

Oxford University Press: OUP USA Home

Interpreting Epidemiologic Evidence ... - Google Book Search

About the person who wrote the book....

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/people/cv/savitz.pdf



Gee, frist people claim I am making up a conspiracy and then turn around and claim I am part o some big tobacco conspiracy.

Well, if you want to hear my conspiracy theory then why don't you just ask?

The Native Indians were living in Eden and so God told the control freaks in the old world that the earth was flat, and that they would fall off the edge if they sailed out to sea too far. That worked for a while but one day someone denied those biblical notions, and set sail to the new world,
when they arrived they found the natives living naked in paradise and smoking tobacco. The control freaks then created towns and cities and made up thousands of rules and regulations, none of which the Indians, who were living in harmony with nature, would obey. So the control freaks got mad and drove them out of the garden of eden into a waste land, located in the Southwestern part of the New World. Just like it was done to Adam and Eve.

And the control freaks brought many diseases with them because they had already polutied the cities in the old world where they had come from, many Indians died because of that, for such diseases were unknown to them.

Then the control freaks finally poluted the New World with their cities and towns, and so they blamed the Native American's tobacco plants that had been used for religious purposes, and now they wish to ban the sacred peace pipe and all other commerical versions of it.

And the Great Spirit in the sky said "woe unto the control freaks who distroyed my Eden, and those whom I have placed in it's keeping".

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul Gee, frist people claim I am making up a conspiracy and then turn around and claim I am part o some big tobacco conspiracy. Well, if you want to hear my conspiracy theory then why don't you just ask? The Native Indians were living in Eden and so God told the control freaks in the old world that the earth was flat, and that they would fall off the edge if they sailed out to sea too far. That worked for a while but one day someone denied those biblical notions, and set sail to the new world, when they arrived they found the natives living naked in paradise and smoking tobacco. The control freaks then created towns and cities and made up thousands of rules and regulations, none of which the Indians, who were living in harmony with nature, would obey. So the control freaks got mad and drove them out of the garden of eden into a waste land, located in the Southwestern part of the New World. Just like it was done to Adam and Eve. And the control freaks brought many diseases with them because they had already polutied the cities in the old world where they had come from, many Indians died because of that, for such diseases were unknown to them. Then the control freaks finally poluted the New World with their cities and towns, and so they blamed the Native American's tobacco plants that had been used for religious purposes, and now they wish to ban the sacred peace pipe and all other commerical versions of it. And the Great Spirit in the sky said "woe unto the control freaks who distroyed my Eden, and those whom I have placed in it's keeping".

*Watches what little credibility you had topple off the cliff into the pit of nonsensical ramblings*

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite *Watches what little credibility you had topple off the cliff into the pit of nonsensical ramblings*

You asked for it and so I gave it to you.

Anyway my historical perspective conforms to what took place in America only instead of nonsensical ramblings about "manifested destiny" that you hear in school I used my own ramblings.

Also, you stated an opinon only.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, my little story ( a pretended conspriacy ) was kind of a spin-off from the "flat earth" anology used in a fomer post by someone (forgot who it was ).

So I had to cover both bases, if you object to my highly crediable posts then perhaps you will find my less crediable post more to yor liking.

Many false profits have come in the name of freedom, liberty, and peace, but they are two-face. They are really control freaks, and they stated a war on cigarette smoking, and other things.

That should be noted in passing as we debate why people want to smoke cigarettes. A topic also being coverd in my "should we ban cigarettes" thread.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Technosoul Yes, that would be a good interpretation of what I said. My remark was directed at epidemiology mainly and not sound sciene. I would reason that if the first guy, with his three boats, proved his theory was correct, more "researchers" were not needed to re-prove what was already known, the world is not flat. No one had to make 600 studies or experiments to prove that the world is not flat. They did not have to show the Queen their physics. They made one trip and came back with some stuff form the new world. Having overcome their fear (of falling off the edge) many others followed and in short order they had the global map. But not to prove what the first guy had already demonstrated. That was a silly anology in my opinion, try another one. If my wife were to bake a cake because a cook book said it would taste good, all I would need is one bite to proove that the cookbook was correct, not 600 cakes. Geeez.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not claiming we need 600 studies to prove the earth is round, or to prove anything else. All I'm saying is that following your own reasoning, since multiple researchers have determined it is indeed round (Eratosthenes , Aristotle, Pythagoras among others), that means it must be flat, because according to you, multiples of the same conclusion means the conclusion itself is dubious. The flat earth vs round earth is just an example of why your logic does not work. It applies equally to any conclusion which we now accept as factual which has been demonstrated by research many times over. Another example would be the evolutionary link between humans and primates. That has certainly been studied hundreds of times.

Get it?

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Technosoul I have no objection to people believing in some report, or if they give up smoking because of a report. I object to a constant bombardment of such reports because that amounts to brainwashing the public. Also proving that the earth was flat was not the result an epidemilogy study, they used a much more trustworthy method. To suggest that I will look bad or that I will be unpopular is "peer pressure" which is the same thing people blame smoking on. Comparing oranges to apples is not the best way for you to win a debate.

You call subjective personal observation a "more reliable method"?
Besides, Erasthenes, among others, used math and physics to show the earth was round, long before Columbus, so you claim is pure b.s. and your argument is dead in the water.
Yet you keep pressing on with an already refuted, totally illogical claim.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: big_lefty You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not claiming we need 600 studies to prove the earth is round, or to prove anything else. All I'm saying is that following your own reasoning, since multiple researchers have determined it is indeed round (Eratosthenes , Aristotle, Pythagoras among others), that means it must be flat, because according to you, multiples of the same conclusion means the conclusion itself is dubious. The flat earth vs round earth is just an example of why your logic does not work. It applies equally to any conclusion which we now accept as factual which has been demonstrated by research many times over. Another example would be the evolutionary link between humans and primates. That has certainly been studied hundreds of times. Get it?

I get your point.

My point is that others are using the abundance of studies as their proof that smoking is unhealthy and must be banned. In other words, they are bombarding the press with "new" studies for the purpose of manipulating public opinon.

When I presented a large number of studies that linked fosil fuel or stress to cancer, as the cause, I came under attack. Because they do not want to admit that not all scientists are in perfect agreement about what causes cancer.

That is totally different then the theory that the earth is round. it ether is or it is not, once confirmed then no one can doubt the facts.

Pythagoras and Aristotle lived during different ages and had no agenda to proove to the Jewish culture that they are wrong. As I recall they had a god Atlas who was holding up a global earth, long before anyone from Spain set sail.

When I pointed out that smoking tobacco has a long histroy of usage in Native American cultues, (who were very keen at observing effects of what they consumed), all the anti-smoking people tried to shoot me down for using "primitive" or "middle age" studies.

Remember that the anti-smoking agenda is only about 30 years old relative to the theory it is unhealthy. In comparison to the long history of useage in shaman cultures.

Now you found a better anology, the theory of evolution is not the same thing as seeking the cause of cancer via the study of lifestyles and stats. The are not making claims about absolutes like debaters are doing here concerning the risk of smoking. They are not trying to ban religious concepts that are different. Most of the continued research is about finding fosil records concerning the natural history of earth, as well as biological and genetic research.

Can the study of evolution lead us to finding the cause of cancer?

Cancer Genetics Network

Once we see that genetics plays a role then epidemilogy might be used to confirm that genes play a major role.

Does race have anything to do with being prone to cancer, and why?

Epidemiology and Genetics Research

Now for a bunch of people to claim that smoking is the source of cancer and nothing else, we would hender biological and genetic research which offer a much more promising bases for finding a real cure.

But instead of money going to more good research it goes to the studies that might prove that smoking and not industral polution causes cancer, mostly so that people who do not like the smell of tobacco will have a flag to wave for their side.

I'll be back tomorrow to respond to any new postings.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Technosoul I get your point. My point is that others are using the abundance of studies as their proof that smoking is unhealthy and must be banned. In other words, they are bombarding the press with "new" studies for the purpose of manipulating public opinon. When I presented a large number of studies that linked fosil fuel or stress to cancer, as the cause, I came under attack. Because they do not want to admit that not all scientists are in perfect agreement about what causes cancer. That is totally different then the theory that the earth is round. it ether is or it is not, once confirmed then no one can doubt the facts. Pythagoras and Aristotle lived during different ages and had no agenda to proove to the Jewish culture that they are wrong. As I recall they had a god Atlas who was holding up a global earth, long before anyone from Spain set sail. When I pointed out that smoking tobacco has a long histroy of usage in Native American cultues, (who were very keen at observing effects of what they consumed), all the anti-smoking people tried to shoot me down for using "primitive" or "middle age" studies. Remember that the anti-smoking agenda is only about 30 years old relative to the theory it is unhealthy. In comparison to the long history of useage in shaman cultures. Now you found a better anology, the theory of evolution is not the same thing as seeking the cause of cancer via the study of lifestyles and stats. The are not making claims about absolutes like debaters are doing here concerning the risk of smoking. They are not trying to ban religious concepts that are different. Most of the continued research is about finding fosil records concerning the natural history of earth, as well as biological and genetic research. Can the study of evolution lead us to finding the cause of cancer? Cancer Genetics Network Once we see that genetics plays a role then epidemilogy might be used to confirm that genes play a major role. Does race have anything to do with being prone to cancer, and why? Epidemiology and Genetics Research Now for a bunch of people to claim that smoking is the source of cancer and nothing else, we would hender biological and genetic research which offer a much more promising bases for finding a real cure. But instead of money going to more good research it goes to the studies that might prove that smoking and not industral polution causes cancer, mostly so that people who do not like the smell of tobacco will have a flag to wave for their side. I'll be back tomorrow to respond to any new postings.

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.

[Technosoul]

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.

[big_lefty]

"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.

[gela]

Well then, show us the questions they used and what all they looked into with that study.. so we can find out if you are right.

Here we go, back to square one.
I've already been through this. If you want the method, you need the journal.

If