It makes no difference what proportion of the population smokes , because their comparison is between rates of disease in smokers versus non-smokers, while ignoring the real (infectious) causal factors. The real reason that people can still get a "smoking related illness" many years after quitting is because the chronic infection is still there.
BG's relationship with BT
- Thread starter caramel
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This slippery and dishonest type of question attempts to insinuate that nobody has the right to doubt anti-smokers or expose their frauds.
Huh? I've just never met anyone who didn't believe cig smoking was harmful, but I am not sure that is what you're saying. Another poster said that about you, but I haven't seen you say this.
The only disagreements I've ever seen before on this forum is regarding the amount of harm. I think we all agree that the anti-smoking types exaggerated and/or lied about a lot of stuff.
Well we're having the same discussions on vaping, with some people advocating zero harm tolerance. This is promptly countered by the other camp mentioning that there's no such thing like a zero harm substance (except Soylent Green lol).
Coming back to smoking - obviously it has to be harmful, like anything else. The real question is indeed the magnitude/extent of this harm.
This is where I'm not fully convinced by the antz theories. Yes, they put in evidence some correlations between smoking and lung cancer. But so did the studies cited by Carol - where the corellation was calculated to some different factors than smoking.
And nobody has any good theory to show how lung cancer works, and whether smoking is a trigger, a favouring/aggravating factor, or a causing factor (like a poison is for poisoning).
Carol keeps quoting articles referring to a virus doing all this. If this is true (like we think it is with HPV and some reproductive organs), then the antz are barking at the wrong tree for decades now. And stalling any progress in elucidating and finding a cure to the real thing. In a very expensive way (they cost us billions).
I would not be at all surprised to learn that a virus actually causes 90+% of the harm attributed to smoking.
Well we would still have to deal with carbon monoxide and some other stuff that are proven to be harmful in a direct, known way. The funny thing is that BT tried to address these in the past yet they were barred by the antz - that declared them "machinations of the devil with no other purpose than to fool people", and BG insisted to actually increase carbon monoxide (the fire ......ant thing).
But yes, the discovery that a virus is the cause for lung cancer would be such a blow to the antz and their money flow that it just can't be let to happen, and if it does, it has to be burried deep, very deep so the word does not spread.
See the current fight between FDA and snus producers over the letter "R" (as in safeR).
yes it does.
when the percentage of smokers was 80% of the adult population it was
easy to blame smoking for everything.
and they did.
getting an illness later in life after 20 or more years after smoking
means you just got sick.there is no lingering anything.
mike
Look at it this way: Demanding that somebody admit to any harm is demanding that they accept the anti-smoker lie that all the evidence is in. And it damn sure is not all in. Look at CMV and heart disease - that's a major upheaval. Or look at CMV and COPD - all the pieces of the picture haven't finished settling down there, either. In fact, no one with any capacity for forethought should be committing themselves to the anti-smoker story, because who knows if they'll find another important virus or bacterium. There have been 11 new polyomaviruses found in just the last couple of years, and none of them has been researched yet. What the anti-smokers did to us was a railroading - rushing through a "conviction" without wanting to know whether they had the story right, because they knew how they wanted it to go before they even started. And those other posters who attack me want the anti-smokers to get away with it all.
As a matter of fact, human papillomaviruses have been implicated in around a quarter of non-small cell lung cancers. Supposedly this is mainly in East Asia, but remember that their reports on the supposed dangers of secondhand smoke used a lot of studies from China and Japan and Taiwan. So a lot of those would really have been caused by HPV!
HPV Causes Lung Cancer
Nothing would surprise me much.
I always said "I wonder what they're gonna blame cancer on when nobody smokes?"
Carol - you talk about viruses, to which I plead ignorance, but I do know that our food, water, and air are being poisoned and I strongly suspect that causes a lot of illnesses, not just cancer.
I always said "I wonder what they're gonna blame cancer on when nobody smokes?"
Carol - you talk about viruses, to which I plead ignorance, but I do know that our food, water, and air are being poisoned and I strongly suspect that causes a lot of illnesses, not just cancer.
The chemical fear-mongers use the same fraud as the anti-smokers, which helps the anti-smokers fear-monger about chemicals in cigarettes and then e-cigs. Remember formaldehyde.
I was a very light smoker for 27 years.
That would be about 7 cigarettes per day over those many years.
I had no idea that I had any health issues related to smoking until I stopped.
--When I was smoking I could hold my breath for around 30 seconds
--After 12 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 90 seconds
--After 17 months of vaping I got a Pulmonary Function test and my results were slightly better than average
--After 30 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 110 seconds
Anybody that tries to tell me smoking is an inconsequential activity is going to lose my support.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
