Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Aneirin -> Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 2:49:12 PM)

An independant paper stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer backed up by data from the WHO shows that what data is out there in the public realm is misleading as the facts are facts, yet we are so mislead, why ? ;

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

If the facts are correct and the truth about this subject is being twisted, I just have to ask why, who does it serve to so mislead people, the public and the science community alike ?

When the reality is, if we did not have this information that smoking is dangerous, governments worldwide could be reaping millions in tax from such an easy target as the addicted, yet they are not, why ?



DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 2:53:32 PM)

Yeah, I'm suffering from years of smoking.  Without cigarettes, I can breathe, with them, I can't and I have really horrible coughing fits.  I think I'm going to stay off them.  I don't have the coughing fits when I'm off them, too.



BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 2:55:18 PM)

Yep. I believe it.

By the way, did I ever mention I am actually a man with a 10 inch cock and balls the size of grapefruits?



Jeffff -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 2:56:11 PM)

If, for the sake of argument, it didn't cause lung cancer it still is harmful.

Heart disease and emphysema come to mind.


BSB?..... how did he cross his legs?



LaTigresse -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 2:57:02 PM)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100715/sc_livescience/cigarettesmokejoltshundredsofgenesresearcherssay



DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:00:38 PM)

I suppose I should mention that my father died of lung cancer 5 years after he quit.  That shit is bad for you and it has been very hard to get off those fuckers.  I'm much better off without them as I'm sure everyone else is, too. 

However, corporations have been known to pay "scientists" to do "studies" that come up with results that the company wants the study to say.  That's why, when doing research, I look to see who funded the study if they're saying something fishy.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:02:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
When the reality is, if we did not have this information that smoking is dangerous, governments worldwide could be reaping millions in tax from such an easy target as the addicted, yet they are not, why ?

The justification for taxation is due to health reasons so your logic is flawed in this respect.

Smoking definitely causes halitosis, known fact, don't do it.



Aneirin -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:08:16 PM)

Just a question, did anyone actually read the article I linkled ?



DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:11:08 PM)

I perused it.



juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:17:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Just a question, did anyone actually read the article I linkled ?


Yes, I scanned it....

Have you ever read a medical journal? In order to believe this guy he would have to have published in a reputable medical journal, and he didn't. Why isn't this data in an important scientific journal? Well because they have a panel of scientists that check the veracity of them

In other words, this guy is a quack



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:18:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Just a question, did anyone actually read the article I linkled ?

No, did it mention Aliens?

If so I might be tempted back.



Arpig -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:19:45 PM)

quote:

governments worldwide could be reaping millions in tax from such an easy target as the addicted, yet they are not, why ?
They aren't? Then why does a pack of fags cost so fucking much?



Estring -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:20:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Just a question, did anyone actually read the article I linkled ?


I read the artcle. It makes sense to me. I have always felt that the dangers of smoking (and especially second hand smoke) have been exaggerated. Of course smoking is unhealthy. And your chances of dying a horrible death are increased if you do smoke. But I remember a few years back hearing numbers like like 50,000 deaths a year from second hand smoke in the US. Really? Where?
The reason for the exaggeration, just as the exaggerations in heterosexual aids, global warming, fast food, etc. is the desire to control your way of life.



AQuietSimpleMan -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:21:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch

Yep. I believe it.

By the way, did I ever mention I am actually a man with a 10 inch cock and balls the size of grapefruits?


NOW I understand why Michael had such a thing for you ... I was always curious.

QSM



DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:22:47 PM)

That's the other thing, I didn't recognize the journal as a legitimate scientific publication, so I didn't find it necessary to do more than glance.  



LadyCimarron -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:35:50 PM)

Its all sematics. In his article he states

"If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use language appropriately in both the medical and scientific literature"
 
He wants the language to change from causes cancer to increases the incidence of cancer. Considering the article is from the Jounal of Theoretics [sm=sleepy.gif] He probably titled it that way so that someone would actually read it.



DCWoody -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 3:58:23 PM)

100% of all human deaths worldwide, ever, have either been caused by massive trauma to the brain (ie, left splattered across a wall in pieces), or lack of oxygen to the brain.

But it's a fuck load of semantic bollocks to object to anyone who suggests simply saying the guy died from a heart attack, or that chainsaw through the neck. Same principle here.



Aneirin -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 4:08:10 PM)

Exactly, so why is it,  the language the way it is, it presents a falsety, as it is clear causes and increases the incidence of mean two different things, the former is a definite and the latter is a possible.

But to others that did not read the article, how is it you can comment when you did not know what was presented ?





Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 4:13:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

An independant paper stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer backed up by data from the WHO shows that what data is out there in the public realm is misleading as the facts are facts, yet we are so mislead, why ? ;

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

If the facts are correct and the truth about this subject is being twisted, I just have to ask why, who does it serve to so mislead people, the public and the science community alike ?

When the reality is, if we did not have this information that smoking is dangerous, governments worldwide could be reaping millions in tax from such an easy target as the addicted, yet they are not, why ?


How do you know this report isn't the one misleading people? [8|]



pahunkboy -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 4:14:53 PM)

could someone here buy me a carton of nice cigarettes?


JK



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125