It's like embracing the arguments of Jman8, only more massive.
But if CarolT were right, then Jman8 would no longer have to fight his fight.
Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists
- Thread starter BuGlen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But if CarolT were right, then Jman8 would no longer have to fight his fight.
"Complicates" the fight? No, it is absolutely essential to the fight. The government's intrusions on our freedom are justified under the pretext of "protecting public health." BUT the government lies by committing scientific fraud, which invalidates their pretext.
If you're right about infections, then yes, it's essential. But it complicates the fight at least for me, 'cause I'd have to first do a lot of difficult reading to be convinced, before even beginning to fight that fight.
Well, I certainly agree with that.
It's an effort worth doing, because the "easier" stuff isn't effective anyhow. But at least you don't have to dig through PubMed all by yourself, because I've been compiling the evidence for decades on my website. If they try to snow you under with lists of supposed "smoking-related" diseases, you can just state that infection(s) is the real cause, and link to the relevant page.
That's if I just take your word for it that it's true. The stuff you've linked to is difficult for me to read, and even harder to understand.
That's valid for the antz materials too.
I'll do for you the executive summary: there are studies saying that some viruses regularly show up in cancerous tissue. To the point where there is a stronger correlation between them and lung cancers than between smoking and said cancers.
OK. From there, what's the next step for digging slightly deeper?
BTW, the ANTZ stuff is very easy to see through, and there's LOTS of help understanding the science write-ups.
Investing into further research of the role of those viruses and either disproving or proving a causality relation. Which is somethig that "public health" adamantly refuses to do, while pouring more millions into more formaldehyde and gateway effect studies.
I meant next step for me. I've read some of CarolT's links and lots of her posts, and opening my mind to it makes my head hurt. It's such an overwhelming change of direction.
There's no further info available. Nothing you can do, short of organizing a new "March of Dimes" with the express purpose of researching those viruses and their role in lung cancers. And specifically forbidding in the statute even mentioning the word "tobacco". Otherwise the antz will take over again and consume all the funding in further anti-smoking campaigns.
OK, but I've barely read any of the available info. The stress kicks in very quickly. I'll put in some more effort, but I'm not sure I'll get far.
Well Carol was pretty thorough and collected about everything that's available. If it's not there, it either does not exist or is kept secret. Take it slowly and you'll eventually reach your own conclusion on this matter.
And the conclusion you've reached is "more research needed", differing from the ANTZ version of that phrase, which is just begging for more junk science money. It would be honest in this case. But it sounds like that's how far you've gotten.
Well it's a "more research is needed" on a plausible hypothesis promising a very useful breakthrough for both non-smokers and smokers if confirmed.
"More research is needed" on dry hits is not such proposition.
I began exploring now, starting with a Google search. Next I'll read stuff at your website. I'd like to first try to zoom in on what I bolded in this:
Do you agree, and where should I look?
I agree in the sense that it looks to me like a very plausible hypothesis. Wait until Carol jumps in again, you'll get some directions for sure.
Until then let's read about a virus-induced lung cancer in sheep:
Jaagsiekte Sheep Retrovirus Is Necessary and Sufficient To Induce a Contagious Lung Cancer in Sheep
P.S. Sheep don't smoke.
P.P.S. It's contagious which is something about cancers that "public health" doesn't openly admit. Unless it's transmitted through a "disease" called "smoking". See previous point though.
Last edited:
What I've compiled actually isn't exhaustive. For example, I usually leave out case reports. But if you want 'exhaustive', there's probably a review there that is. Also, I normally don't start a page for pathogen-disease associations that haven't been pretty well confirmed.
Did you scroll down my index page to where it lists the virus/disease links?
Otherwise I don't know why you'd try to reinvent the wheel, or why you'd use Google rather than PubMed. A lot that's on Google is repetitious.
It's not very useful, because very few people are exposed to sheep viruses. Also they describe the tumors as adenomas, which are considered benign. However, HPV causes about a quarter non-small cell carcinomas in humans.
HPV Causes Lung Cancer
This is a minority of lung cancers, but HPV could account for a considerable proportion of lung cancers in non-smokers. And remember that most of the passive smoking studies in the EPA report were in Asians, where the prevalence of HPV-related lung cancers is highest. Poorer people are more likely to be exposed to HPV, based on things like rates of cervical cancer, and smokers along with those exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to be among the less-wealthy classes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked