Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!

Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer! I’m getting so tired of having to explain this to the brainless anti-smokers who write to me in anger. Another person wrote to me yesterday and said: “How can you defend a product that is known to cause cancer?” I’m getting very weary of having to explain this to people over and over again.

Smoking is one of many risk factors for cancer, but it does not cause cancer. If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does, then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.

Think about it for a second. Employ a little critical thinking and use your brain: Would you think it a reasonable statement to say that automobiles cause drunk driving? Of course not! The notion that automobiles are the cause of drunk driving is patently ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that drunk people cause drunk driving, not automobiles, right? And, if I were to suggest any different, then you would likely think that I’m some kind of imbecile. After all, the majority of automobiles on the road will never see any intoxicated person sit behind the wheel and attempt to operate the vehicle. But, every time an intoxicated person does attempt to operate a vehicle, drunk driving is the result. So, why should I not think that you were some kind of imbecile if you were to say to me: “Smoking causes cancer!”???

Think about it: If your claim is that smoking does indeed cause cancer, you also, more than likely, agree that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving. Yet, if we were to somehow eliminate every automobile from the face of the planet tomorrow, we would also completely eliminate drunk driving. Even though this is true, it is still absurd to think that automobiles cause drunk driving. However, if we were to somehow eliminate smoking tomorrow, there would still be an awful lot of cancer in the world! So, how could you then look at me with a straight face and say that smoking causes cancer, while at the same time agreeing that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving, AND believe, even in the slightest way, that you haven’t been brainwashed by the propaganda?

The FACT of the matter is: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! Smoking may, in some cases, improve the ability of the actual cause of cancer to take hold. But, it DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. There is a huge difference there! Certain health professionals, certain people who claim to be an authority on such matters, and members of the anti-smoking crusades are fond of throwing around the phrase “smoking causes cancer” because the phrase carries more weight than saying: “Smoking is one of many risk factors associated with the onset of cancer.” And, they feel that it is much easier for the average person to digest. But in all actuality, they are either liars, or grossly misinformed.

203 Responses to “ Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! ”

  1. you are absolutely right in what you say. Look at this link and read the conclusion. You will be amazed.

    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

  2. I have been stating this since 1963 (when the first official claim was made that smoking causes LC.) Actually, it is exactly the other way round: LC causes smoking. DOn’t laugh it is just a funny way of making my point, and I am a statistician. There is such a thing as a “smoking personality”, which in many cases coincides with “heart condition personality” (also called triple A). Apparently Ca is also very prevalent in such personalities (Monday something was at last published regarding genes of smokers and genes of Ca patients. So actually, if you are going to have LC (or, for that matter, other Ca’s) you have a much greater probability of being one of the many smokers.
    I claim that for a smoker, the most dangerous thing he can do is QUIT SMOKING. That will surely cause all kinds of diseases, if not, ask their spouses!

  3. Let me begin by stating that I am a smoker. I have been smoking for over 20 yrs and as yet I have no cancer.
    I have long believed that the claim that smoking causes cancer is a misquote (at best) or an outright lie (at worst). Currently I am a college student in Florida.
    I am currently writing a research paper on the subject and I am finding it extremely difficult to find reliable data on the subject. I am asking for assistance in backing my argument with reputable proof that a non smoker can accept. Can you help?

  4. Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots.

  5. Lol. Look everyone! It’s Laura! Someone who doesn’t possess the intellectual apparatus to argue facts, and reasonably defend her position, so instead resorts to vacuous verbage. What’s it like to be stupid, Laura? Really, I’m curious. Tell me. What’s it like to not be very intelligent? And, since you’ve adequatley demonstrated your obvious intellectual inferiority, (and hypocrisy with your “idiots” comment, to boot) what makes you think that we’re wrong, and you’re right?

    It’s painfully obvious, Laura, that you hold to a passionate belief, and have absolutely no idea WHY you believe it. So, please, tell me: What does that make you?

    Please, just do everyone a favor and go away. Small minded, little people like you just don’t matter – you don’t count for anything – nobody cares about you, or your feeble-minded opinions – you’re too small and insignificant. You have no worth.

  6. Derek – Laura is not stupid. She is brainwashed, has an inferiority complex, and an extremely limited vocabulary, those three things do not indicate diminished mental capacity. Just because someone communicates via a system of clicks and grunts, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a series of complex thoughts behind them.

    That being said, I am grateful for this article and the references. We all need to put down our Ipod’s and double shot lattes, stop believing everything we are told, and think critically. The real cause of cancer is even being concealed by the medical establishments propaganda telling us that we will avoid disease by getting out and excercising. If you are out running around in circles like the opening scene from the Sound of Music, you won’t be reading and arming yourself with information that will effectively stop disease and the loss of your freedoms.

    Laura – Your purpose is not in “Da Club” or on the dance floor… your purpose is to educate yourself to become powerful.

    Later

  7. Nah. I think Laura’s just stupid. Sure, I don’t think those three things you mention, on their own, necessarily indicate diminished mental capacity. But, making an effort to put forth a vacuous, useless, derogatory comment, in the absence of any attempt to justify it, is at least suggestive of such.

    If a person was merely brainwashed with an inferiority complex, and limited vocabulary, but was still capable of “complex thought processes”, they would usually attempt to use those thought process to justify their opinion by putting forth an argument – no matter how false or misguided it might be. A failure to do this is suggestive of an inability to do this. And, an inability to do this is indicative of a lack of intellect.

    I’ve had plenty of showdowns with otherwise intelligent, yet brainwashed anti-smokers – some with inferiority complexes, some with limited vocabularies, and some with both, I’m sure. They always attempt to argue their case. Only the stupid ones ever offer up singular comments like: “HA HA! You’re stupid! LOL! OMFG you’re so in denial and stuff! LOLZ!”

    Of course, one can not accurately and with certainty judge intellect based on a single, poorly formed, three sentence comment. But, I think the smart money is betting on the probability that Laura has been consuming a steady and exclusive diet of moron-sandwiches for quite some time now.

  8. Hi, so I am doing a speech on quitting smoking, and I stumbled on to this blog. I just wanted to make a comment saying that of course the automobiles do not cause drunk driving, and noone ever claimed that they have. It is the obvious culprit, which is the alcohol, that causes the drunk driving. I really do not see your argument with the fact that smoking has proven to cause cancer. You have not really stated an argument at all. Maybe it is the chemicals and all the other crap in the cigarettes that cause the cancer, even so….SMOKING that crap causes the cancer. By saying that “smoking may improve the availability of the actual cancer to take hold” Is a very contradictory statement….that just simply dances around the phrase that smoking is a very strong contributor to cancer related deaths. Now, I smoked for 10 years, and quit a year ago…I have never felt better. By saying that people who think that smoking causes cancer are brainwashed is ridiculous.

  9. Dee: As far as our current best science tells us, smoking is as causative of cancer as automobiles are causative of drunk driving. There is a scientifically proven corollary link between smoking and cancer, there is NO causative link. If you think there is, then I dare you to find me one. I dare you to find me a peer reviewed medical paper demonstrating a positive causative link between smoking and cancer.

    If you can’t do that, then I think the responsible thing to do would be to ask yourself why you believe so strongly that one exists. If there is no objective reason to believe such a thing, then the most likely explanation is that you are the victim of conditioned thinking – you have been told what to think, and you think it.

    The fact of the matter is: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. To state otherwise is entirely disingenuous. Smoking is a risk factor. Smoking may increase one’s risk of contracting cancer. But, IT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. If you hear someone tell you that it does, they are either lying to you, they are grossly misinformed, or they are making an uneducated guess.

    Ask any honest medical research scientist and they will tell you that before researchers even begin to SPECULATE about a causative link, they require a bare minimum of a 50% corollary link. That means that to even begin to suspect a possible causative link, half of every smoker would have to be seen contracting lung cancer. (The only type of cancer that has ever been shown to have even a corollary link to smoking.) According to the best available data, the current corollary link between tobacco smoke and cancer is less than 10%! We’re short about 40 percentage points before we should even begin SPECULATING about a causative link.

    In fact, according to the W.H.O.’s own data, if you never smoke a single cigarette in your life, your chance of contracting lung cancer is about 1%. If you are a heavy smoker, your chance jumps to only 8%. That means that even if you are a heavy smoker throughout your entire life, you have a 92% chance of NEVER getting lung cancer. Please, tell me honestly: Does that sound like something that CAUSES cancer? Or, does that sound more like something that, while not causative, increases the risk of cancer occurring?

    Let me ask you this: How do you know smoking causes cancer? If you can’t answer that question, then you are asserting opinion based entirely on ignorance. And, if such is the case, you can not dare to get upset if other people suspect that you might be “brainwashed.”

    http://smintair.com/…/Siepmann.html

  10. And, P.S. – Alcohol DOES NOT cause drunk driving. I drink on occasion, and I’ve never driven drunk. Almost everyone I know drinks on occasion, and almost no one I know has ever driven while drunk. It’s ludicrous to state that alcohol causes drunk driving.

    When people become drunk, alcohol DOES NOT CAUSE them to go out and get behind the wheel of a car while in their drunken condition. Use your head a little! DRUNK DRIVERS cause drunk driving – NOT ALCOHOL!

  11. And, P.P.S. – There was nothing contradictory about my statement. My statement was asserting the difference between a causative link, and a corollary one. By YOUR reasoning (that the words corollary and causative are interchangeable) birds cause cancer, sex causes cancer, lungs cause cancer, etc., etc. Your assertion is absurd. There is a difference between a corollary link and a causative one.

  12. Hello….I found this site and thought I would add my thoughts. I have smoked for about 15 years (including +5 years with a 5 year smokeLess period between) and because I am not educated in the science of knowing whether smoking does or does not cause cancer, I like most people must rely on those that do have the knowledge in educating myself and the public with HONESTY and truth. In my 50 years I have also learned that the truth is not always what it appears to be and that whenever there is a “dont do that” attached there is usually another dollar in someone’s pocket. Although I still have my doubts that my smoking wont eventually harm me in some way, I still exercise an open mind to a reasonable arguement with facts to support. I know many ex-smokers say how great they feel after they quit and perhaps many do but in my 5 year smokeless period I suufered two very painfuL kidney stone episodes and one almost fatal ulcer bleed not to mention sinus problems and acid reflux, now perhaps these ailments happened without any regard to my non~smoking behavoir but in the last 15 years since I started back up I have not suffered anything other then a minor cold or flu (just being honest folks), but of course I might drop dead before you even read this. My biggest complaint in regards to our anti~smoking friends is their blatant disregard for humility towards smokers no matter what the occasion might be. They like to say smokers are stupid, in denial, etc.(and maybe we are) but i say SO WHAT??, people do stupid things all the time, it’s just what we do. I have bore witness to many friends and family members leave this earth (no smoke~related to date), sometimes dying is not a pretty thing nor is it always painless but we will all eventually experience it. You always hear the old “..if you ever have to see someone die from cancer (smoke related of course) then you might think different”…but let me tell you this…”when you watch your Mother slowing dying from alzheimers disease and who also never smoked a day in her life, then perhaps you wont think living to 90 is such a great thing afterall”… Some may feel I am endorsing or justifing smoking but in truth I am just being honest, I do however justify freedom to do as you choose as long as you dont infringe on your brother or sister or as my late Uncle Mack would say…”You can pass on my grass but keep your shit in your ass” Peace..

  13. “I just wanted to make a comment saying that of course the automobiles do not cause drunk driving, and noone ever claimed that they have.”

    I just wanted to comment on this comment even though it might be off subject, I agree with the fact automobiles do not cause drunk driving, but it just illustrates the hypocrisy of society becuase one might also agree that automobiles do not cause drunks from operating them but in the same right one may join the anti~gun gang with the idea that guns do kill so we should not own them when the same holds true with a automobile since a gun by itself cannot kill someone unless a murderer uses it.

  14. Thank-you for your comments Mark. More people “just being honest” is exactly what this entire issue needs.

    There is no reasonable doubt that smoking is a health risk. If you smoke, you are taking a health risk that you wouldn’t be taking if you didn’t smoke. That much is not debatable. And, while smoking does not cause cancer, it most definitely does raise a smoker’s chances of contracting the disease. So, I don’t want to paint any pictures that might suggest that smoking is an entirely benign activity. Because, it just isn’t.

    However, the truth of the matter is that the popularly perceived nature and severity of the exact risk associated with tobacco smoke is much more a product of hysteria than of actual observable fact. The severity of the risks involved have been greatly exaggerated in the public psyche. The FACT of the matter is: if you smoke for your entire life, the odds are fairly heavily in your favor that you will never contract a smoking related illness. Of course, while that is true, the odds are more in your favor if you’ve never smoked.

    So, the argument is not “Do you risk your health by smoking?” Of course you do. And, the brainless anti-smokers claim that this alone is enough to warrant their fascist assaults. But, to the reasonable person, the question then becomes: If a simple answer in the affirmative to the question “Does it carry a risk?” is enough of an argument, then when does the war against ice cream begin? When does the war against skiing begin? Automobiles? etc., etc.,

    The anti-smoking crusaders have no reasonable, logical, or rational argument to stand on. They know this. And, this is why they resort to their relentless campaigns of promoting fear, hate and hysteria. They have nothing else.

    And, for the record, I too have heard from countless ex-smokers about all of the greatness of well-being they found once they’d given up smoking. I once quit for just a little shy of a year. In that entire time, I noticed no change in my well-being whatsoever. I had no more or less energy. Food tasted no better or worse. I experienced no more or less sickness. My sleeping habits neither improved nor degraded, and on, and on.

    Yes, smoking might kill me. It might even kill me while I’m still young. But, it most probably wont. I also might die in a car accident. I might even die in this car accident while I’m still young. But, I most probably wont.

  15. Apparantly, Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer.

    Welcome to the blog of Derek. Derek is a smoker. Derek doesn’t like people telling him not to smoke. Derek has also evidentally swallowed a thesaurus. Let’s take a quote from this well-documented analysis:

    “If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does [cause cancer], then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.”

    When he essentially means is “I’m right, you’re wrong, no matter what science says”. He also comes up with a genius argument to support his theory that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. This is an actual genuine quote from him:

    “Would you think it a reasonable statement to say that automobiles cause drunk driving? Of course not!”

    No, but it’s a factor. The act is well described in the name “drunk driving”. You have to be drunk and then drive. This makes you a “drunk driver”. The phrase found on the sides of numerous cigarette packets state “Cigarettes will damage you health” and “Smoking causes and will aid cancer” are similar phrases where you have to read every word for it to take effect. His “drunk driving” argument is irrelevant and pathetic.

    What gets me is how quick he and his friends are to jump down the throats of anyone who were to disagree with them. On the provided link are also comments to his oh-so-fabulous analogy. A girl called Laura is one to comment, “Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots”. This is basically getting the point across because all Derek and his friends are just smokers in denial, not prepared to realise that what they are doing are detrimental to their health. Check out one of Derek’s supporters reply to Laura’s comment:

    “[Laura is] someone who doesn’t possess the intellectual apparatus to argue facts, and reasonably defend her position, so instead resorts to vacuous verbage.”

    Wow! Everyone! Look at the big words! How impressive! And alliteration too! This person must have at least one GCSE in English!

    All I’m saying is that if somebody is definately wrong in an argument, all the four-syllable words in the world will never prevent them from being wrong.

  16. Friz, do you actually have an argument? Or, is commenting on how certain people’s usage of language doesn’t meet with your particular tastes it?

    “When he essentially means is “I’m right, you’re wrong, no matter what science says”.”

    No. Actually what my argument is, if you’d care to inform yourself as to the nature of the opinions that you seem to wish to argue against, is that science doesn’t actually say that. Instead it says quite the opposite.

    “He also comes up with a genius argument to support his theory that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. This is an actual genuine quote from him:”

    That’s not the argument. It’s an illustration of the argument – a sort of thought experiment, intended to clarify meaning.

    “No, but it’s a factor.”

    uh.. yeah… which is exactly what I said. So, your argument is that you actually agree with my argument?!?!? Wow! Good argument!

    “The act is well described in the name “drunk driving”. You have to be drunk and then drive. This makes you a “drunk driver”.”

    But we’re not discussing factors, we’re discussing causation. Would you agree that lungs cause lung cancer? You must have lungs in order to contract lung cancer. Lungs are clearly a factor. You would agree that lungs are causative then?

    “The phrase found on the sides of numerous cigarette packets state “Cigarettes will damage you health” and “Smoking causes and will aid cancer” are similar phrases where you have to read every word for it to take effect.

    If a cigarette packet displays the phrase “smoking causes cancer” then it displays a lie. Show me a definitive causative link between smoking and cancer, and I’ll retract my statement. Until then, if you are in agreement with such warning labels on packaging, then the only rational conclusion is that you support lying to the public in order to further your own agenda.

    “What gets me is how quick he and his friends are to jump down the throats of anyone who were to disagree with them. On the provided link are also comments to his oh-so-fabulous analogy. A girl called Laura is one to comment, “Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots”. This is basically getting the point across because all Derek and his friends are just smokers in denial, not prepared to realise that what they are doing are detrimental to their health.”

    You’re misinformed. I stated quite clearly that smoking is a health risk.

    But, if Laura wanted to present a rational argument, she would have been treated differently. She didn’t present one because she doesn’t have one. She has swallowed what has been fed to her, she has accepted it as revealed truth, and she has no idea why she believes what she does. If you come on here and throw around ad hominem attacks without presenting any argument, you’re going to get exposed for what you are – deal with it.

    “Check out one of Derek’s supporters reply to Laura’s comment:”

    That wasn’t a supporter, that was me. Do you understand anything that’s going on here? Or, are you just hopelessly confused?

    “Wow! Everyone! Look at the big words! How impressive! And alliteration too! This person must have at least one GCSE in English!”

    I find it interesting that someone who uses the word “alliteration” in a sentence is criticizing others for being too wordy. What are you anyway, a fucking language cop? In the other post you criticize someone for poor use of English in one comment, then in your very next comment you criticize me for using words you don’t like. I’m sorry if you don’t like big words – I’m sorry if you’re confused by them – but you really need to get over this ridiculous obsession of yours.

    “All I’m saying is that if somebody is definately wrong in an argument, all the four-syllable words in the world will never prevent them from being wrong.”

    And, I’m saying that if you actually had any sort of argument yourself, you wouldn’t resort to pointing out how people’s usage of language doesn’t fit with your particular tastes. You attack the style of language because you simply are unable to attack the argument itself. That much is all too clear.

  17. smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer.

    now repeat with me: smoking cigarettes is not a cause of cancer

    why?

    does every smoker have cancer? if you have proof that smoking cigarettes is a cause of cancer, every single smoker out there should have cancer, or at least the beginnings of it.

    why?

    because your argument is that smoking cigarettes is definitely, 100% a cause of cancer. therefore, everyone who is a smoker has caused cancer to his body. no?

    if there’s a SINGLE SMOKER out there in the whole world that smokes cigarettes for many years and does not have cancer, then this is PROOF that smoking cigarettes is not a CAUSE of cancer.

    and i know that there is already a single smoker, heavy smoker out there who does not have any kind of cancer or disease, but i can’t prove it, not right now.

    the claim that smoking cigarettes is a CAUSE of cancer, is similar to any other cause and effect claim.

    gravity, is what we call that mysterious force that causes object to stick to the surface of the earth. gravity is a cause, attraction is an effect.

    this means, that no matter how many times you try to throw a stone up in the air, it will always fall down. you can continue throwing the same rock up in the air for your whole life, it will always fall to the ground. that is a cause. there is no exception to it!

    do you want to know the truth and only the truth, about how smoking increases the danger of cancer in an individual? get ready…

    the subliminal messages on the packs. the media propaganda and the installment of such beliefs.

    there you have it. if you believe you’ll probably get cancer before you even start smoking, you set yourself candidate to be a cancer patient.

    placebo effect anyone?

    to the skeptics… hey, you don’t have to believe what you just read. belief without question is what causes all the drama in our world, so don’t be a part of the drama because of what i wrote.

    use your brain instead, clear all your preconceived ideas and whatever anyone has told you (make a warm reboot..) and see for yourself.

    (i used to be an anti-smoker when i was a kid, quite passionate about it too, until i spotted the brainwashing. it’s hard to do, but believe me it’s worth it)

    i will never suggest smoking to someone who would believe that it is bad for them. in fact, i would never suggest anything at all, when people believe that it would be harmful for them. big mistake.

    observation/conclusion: fear causes cancer among millions of other diseases and illnesses.

  18. If smoking really caused cancer then all smokers would die of it, my grandfather for example only smoked hard all his life and died at the age of 86, he started in his teens, and there are many other examples like that, my mom smokes for over 30 years still alive.My dad never smoked and died at the age of 62.

  19. cool,anyone got a light?

  20. SMOKING IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU – NOR IS OVEREATING, DIRTY HOUSES, NOT TAKING BATHS, …..I COULD GO ON AND ON.
    ONE THING IS FOR SURE SMOKING DOES NOT HELP YOU MAINTAIN GOOD HEALTH. ALL MY FRIENDS THAT HAVE DIED FROM CANCER DID NOT SMOKE. MY GRANDFATHER LIVED TO BE 90 (HE QUIT SMOKING AT 89) GO FIGURE??? IT IS THE SIN TAX THAT KEEPS US ALL BRAINWASHED. I GREW UP WHERE EVERYONE SMOKED. MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL. DOCTORS HAVE NO BUSINESS SCARING PEOPLE TO DEATH – WHEN THEY ARE STANDING THERE 50 LBS. OVER WEIGHT. I SAY SMOKERS DESERVE RIGHTS!!!!! I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE, ASKING ME, YOU SMOKE? YEAH, AND DO YOU HAVE SEX?

  21. I am 24 years old and literally just started smoking a month ago. Nobody in my family smokes and I try my best to hide it from my family, but I LOVE it. I truly believe that what Derek has stated here is absolutely true. I once watched a segment on a morning news show (I think it was Ssturday’s The today show.) Anyway, they were showing this family of 5 siblings who happened to be the oldest siblings in america. The “baby” was 94 years old. The oldest sister (Not sibling) was 103 yrs old and when asked what her secrets to living so long were, she responded; “I eat crap, never exercise and I’ve smoked 3 packs a day since I was 14 years old.” She never had cancer. I agree, to say that Smoking causes cancer is completely false. To me, that saying means EVERYONE THAT SMOKES WILL GET CANCER. If you non-smokers do your reasearch (like I did) Derek is absolutely right. Less than 10% of HEAVY smokers get cancer of any kind. Meanwhile, 30% of non-smokers end up with cancer. Cancer is a mutation of dead cells. The reason they can’t cure cancer is because they cannot figure out why that mutation occurs. The ONLY reason that smoking increases your chances of developing cancer by 7% is because by smoking, you’re killing off more cells faster than a non-smoker. Whether those dead cells mutate or not has absolutely nothing to do with smoking. Look it up.

  22. Hello everyone, I was just reading and some interesting things I heard. Wow, smoking is definitely a risk factor, but like you all said, if smoking itself caused cancer, than 100% of all smokers should get cancer, and that is notthe case.

    I look at smoking like struggling with sweets, or coffee, or drinking too much.

    It is definitely a bad habit, and not good for your health, but I am not sure that smoking is worse than a fast food burger. but I do want to quit everything that effects my health, but it has been taking time and effort.

  23. Smoking may not be a direct cause of cancer, but smoking is not good for you. I don’t think you can really compare smoking to a greasy burger. If you indulge in greasy burgers, do you eat 10-20 burgers a day? Probably not. But if you are a smoker, you probably smoke anywhere from 10-20 cigarettes a day. As a recovering smoker, I understand the joy of lighting up a cigarette. But the truth of the matter is that it is not good for you. Smoking increases blood pressure, it causes fine lines around the mouth, it is bad for the skin, it is hard on the throat and esophogus. However, smokers know all of that. Smokers know that inhaling smoke full of harmful chemicals is not the act of a health conscious person. A smoker is intimately aware of all the negative effects smoking has on his/her body. That is the rebellion of a smoker. We smoke because we like it. We like it so much that we do not care what it does to our bodies. I know because I loved smoking. I could deal with the extra phlegm, the coughing, and the yearly bronchitis. What ultimately convinced me to stop? It costs to damn much. So, smoking is hard on your health and your wallet.

  24. My Grandfather smoked a pack a day from the time he was in his teens until he quit for good on his 50th birthday. He was also an alcoholic and drank close to a 12 case of beer every day for most of his life – right up until the day he died. Most mornings he would eat a breakfast of bacon, fried eggs and sausage, and cover the entire meal in large amounts of corn syrup. And, no lie, he would wash down his morning breakfast each day with a large, cold glass of buttermilk. He did this for most of his life. His general eating habits regarding meals other than breakfast fell along the same lines. For at least the last 10 years of his life he was extremely sedentary. He suffered some health problems, and because of them, for the last few years of his life, he really didn’t do very much other than sit in a chair watching T.V. and drinking beer.

    When he died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 67, his doctor told my grandmother that it was no doubt the cigarettes – a habit he had given up 17 years prior to his death – that had killed him.

    The moral of the story – irrationality, false logic and hysteria reigns supreme – even within the medical profession – when dealing with the foul demon tobacco.

  25. Quote from Derek:
    “In fact, according to the W.H.O.’s own data, if you never smoke a single cigarette in your life, your chance of contracting lung cancer is about 1%. If you are a heavy smoker, your chance jumps to only 8%. That means that even if you are a heavy smoker throughout your entire life, you have a 92% chance of NEVER getting lung cancer. Please, tell me honestly: Does that sound like something that CAUSES cancer? Or, does that sound more like something that, while not causative, increases the risk of cancer occurring?”

    Interesting. According to the WHO website:
    http://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/en/index.html
    “Tobacco is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world today. It causes 80-90% of all lung cancer deaths, and about 30% of all cancer deaths in developing countries, including deaths from cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, oesophagus and stomach. ”

    So while it doesn’t talk about the ‘chance’ of getting cancer, it does say that tabacco (read it with me now…) “causes” cancer. In fact 80-90% of all lung cancer cases seem to be caused by tabacco use.
    Now, granted, smoking (a tabacco product) is not the only cause of cancer, a lot of healthy people die of cancer too. A number of people have also smoked all their life and never contracted cancer. But this does not mean that smoking does not cause cancer. All it means is that there are other factors involved that we don’t know about which has helped those people fight the cancer. With over 3000 chemicals, and at least 40 of them being proven cancer causing agents, smoking does indeed cause cancer. For some reason a few people are seemingly immune to the effects, but it does not negate the fact that it does cause cancer.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/index.html

    “WHAT CAUSES CANCER?
    Cancer occurs because of changes of the genes responsible for cell growth and repair. These changes are the result of the interaction between genetic host factors and external agents which can be categorized as:

    physical carcinogens such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation
    chemical carcinogens such a asbestos and tobacco smoke
    biological carcinogens such as
    infections by virus (Hepatitis B Virus and liver cancer, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and cervical cancer) and bacteria (Helicobater pylori and gastric cancer) and parasites (schistosomiasis and bladder cancer)
    contamination of food by mycotoxins such as aflatoxins (products of Aspergillus fungi) causing liver cancer.
    Tobacco use is the single most important risk factor for cancer and causes a large variety of cancer types such as lung, larynx, oesophagus, stomach, bladder, oral cavity and others . Although there are still some open questions, there is sufficient evidence that dietary factors also play an important role in causing cancer. This applies to obesity as a compound risk factor per se as well as to the composition of the diet such as lack of fruit and vegetables and high salt intake. Lack of physical activity has a distinct role as risk factor for cancer. There is solid evidence about alcohol causing several cancer types such as oesophagus, pharynx, larynx, liver, breast, and other cancer types.”

    If you don’t believe, the WHO, who will you believe?

  26. So… your argument is what? Proclamation??? It’s true because the WHO says it’s true? Excellent! Good argument! Funny how they cite no references in that article. They just make the claim that smoking CAUSES 80-90% of lung cancers, and some of us… *ahem*… just swallow it up without question – we’ve taken to our conditioning so well. Haven’t we?

    In fact, the WHO (a band of proven liars: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199803/ai_n18285281), funded in no small part by the pharmaceutical industry, (an industry with a gigantic financial interest in getting as many smokers as possible to attempt to quit) is about the last organization I’d trust. They have demonstrated, clearly and openly, an entirely irrational tobacco control agenda. In fact, when Brundtland stepped in as Director of the WHO in 1998, she loudly proclaimed tobacco awareness and control to be a top priority for the WHO… Wonderful! She didn’t say all that much about something like malaria, however – a disease which claims the lives of one child under the age of 15 every single minute of every single day worldwide. No! Her major concern was a product that people consume willingly, and claims most of its alleged victims sometime in their 70s.. you know… right around the age of normal life expectancy. Of course, malaria is a largely third-world disease, and most of those children dieing every minute can’t really afford to buy medicine from the pharmaceutical companies… so, no big whoop I guess. Keeping rich, fat westerners hysterical with fear so they’ll keep shelling out dollars for expensive patches, pills and gum is much more important.

    Now, lets get around to the interesting subject of independent thought versus blindly swallowing any information that is fed to you by people in what seems to be positions of authority or expertise. If you’d care to attempt to incorporate just a little critical thinking, you should be able to see that your “causes 80-90% of lung cancers” statement is entirely meaningless.

    It’s sort of akin to me saying “90% of widget makers who experience work related accidents die from their injuries.” ..well? So what? It tells us absolutely nothing about the dangers of widget making – it’s a meaningless statistic. It’s designed and used only to instill fear and promote irrationality and hysteria. You see, if there were only 100,000 people who have ever worked as widget makers, and only 10 of them ever experienced an accident, and 9 of them died from it, then widget making is a rather benign activity. Statistically speaking, you’d stand a chance of less than 1 in 10,000 of dieing if you were to take up widget making. On the other hand, if 95,000 of them experienced accidents at some point… well, you’d be an idiot if you thought about taking up that job offer down at the local widget factory. The 90% death figure holds true in both cases – but it doesn’t say anything about the dangers of widget making.

    You follow? The percentage figure is a completely meaningless figure in the absence of more information. It works the same with smoking – Even if 90% of lung cancers were caused by smoking (and this number is demonstrably false) smoking is as safe as chocolate cake if only .00001% of smokers are contracting lung cancer. In fact, even if the 90% figure is true, tobacco would be THE GREATEST MIRACLE DRUG ON THE PLANET if 1% of smokers got lung cancer, while 50% of non-smokers got it. Smoking would be hell on wheels however if 99% of smokers are getting lung cancer. All of these different outcomes, and the 90% figure still holds true in each case. What does that tell you? IT’S MEANINGLESS!!! So, why then do anti-smokers bandy about a meaningless statistic so often? Because they are trying to disingenuously create fear and hysteria in the public psyche in order to further their own agenda. This is why the anti-tobacco movement is evil. They are puritanical liars, tyrants, and fear-mongers!

    And, of course, the fact of the matter is, according to the WHO’s own data, approx. 92% of heavy smokers (that’s *heavy* smokers) will NEVER contract lung cancer. (There’s a list of references supporting this available here: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm) So, see the widget maker analogy above.

    And, to throw a wrench in to some of your other mindlessly accepted and regurgitated “facts” and figures … there’s over 4,000 chemicals in the average American’s daily diet. Are you going to stop eating now? 4,000 chemicals??? Food must be bad for you! Right? Tap water has been found to contain upwards of 120 chemicals known to have adverse effects on health – including, in some instances, dioxin – the most carcinogenic substance known to man. (There’s no dioxin in cigarettes) Wow! Better start a world-wide crusade against water, huh?

    Almost all of those same chemicals in tobacco smoke are also released into the atmosphere whenever you cook something – and at a much higher CFM than a room full of smokers. We’d better better start a global crusade on banning the cooking of food as well, huh?

    Many of those 3,000 chemicals in cigarettes that you refer to are things like H2O (water), sodium chloride (salt), carbon, etc. Oh, and some of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are actually anti-carcinogens… but you never hear about those ones do you? That wouldn’t be conducive to creating an aura of hysteria, now would it?

    Also, to help keep things in perspective a little, I should point out that at least one of the evil chemicals that you seem so worried about can be found in both tap water and cigarettes – arsenic! Arsenic is a deadly poison… and you can put as much of it in your system by drinking one, 8oz. glass of water as you can by smoking 165,000 cigarettes in a row. So, I guess smoking is healthier than drinking water then????

    The moral of the story is: meaningless statements and statistics are nothing more than meaningless statements and statistics. Things need to be put into perspective. And, a little independent though and critical thinking goes a long way.

  27. Wow.
    Could you show me the peer reviewed data that states on 8 oz glass of tap water contains the same amount of arsenic as 165,000 cigarettes?
    Also, isn’t it funny that when you quote the WHO to ‘prove’ your point, the data is set in stone, but when someone tries to do the same to show the other side, you critizise it as being meaningless?
    Critical thinking should work both ways you know… I am in no way a scientist, chemical biologist, or anything else like that, so I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things. People like the scientists and researchers that work for the WHO (which I figure a number of them are probably free lance and have no ties to the WHO, or the WHO’s agenda). They have nothing to gain from this, they just tell it as the find it.
    Where do you get all your information? You cited a few links. The first one tries to bash the credibility of the WHO, but it is almost 10 years old. I’m sure if they really were legitimately lying, there would be a lot more recent references to it.
    The other article is basically just arguing semantics (similar to what you tried to do above before you got all cranky and defensive). Does smoking cause cancer? This is the actual question we are discussing. In all honesty, I cannot say yes or no definitively. And unless you are a scientist of some sort and a subject matter expert in this field, then you must also admit that in all honesty, you cannot say yes or no either. All of us could go back and forth citing references and links that support our view, but it still doesn’t actually prove anything. If you think as critically as you assume you do, you would understand this.
    There was a reference to smoking being as bad for you as easting fast food in your second link. Yes, that is true; eating fast food is bad for you. But if you eat fast food, you are only hurting you. Not those around you. However, smoking is bad for you too, but when you smoke near me, it now becomes harmful to my health as well, and that is not right. If you want to hurt yourself my smoking, go ahead, I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger. If you promise to put your cigarette out before I walk past you on the side walk, then I will promise not to regurgitate my burger into your stomach….
    Sounds kinda gross, but at least you have a choice to keep your mouth closed when I try to force feed you a burger. I can’t stop breathing while you smoke.
    That is my agenda. I don’t care what you do to yourself, it is your choice. But when it affects others that choose not to smoke, then I have a problem with it….

  28. PS:
    The statement about tabacco causing 80-90% of all lung cancers is not meaningless. It does not say anything about the total number of smokers. It talks about the total number of cancer cases. So (using your widget analogy) there may be 100,000 smokers. 1,000 of them may contract lung cancer through their lives. What the statistics are saying is that of those 1,000 people, 8-9k will get cancer as a direct result from smoking. The other 1-2k that get cancer can be attributed to other environmental causes. The point is that in those 8-9k people, smoking CAUSED cancer. Why did the other 99,000 not get cancer at all? Who knows, maybe they ate more oranges…. but that is irrelevant to the point.
    As I said before, I cannot say for certain as I am not a SME, but others who have collected the data and done the research seem to know.

  29. “Wow.
    Could you show me the peer reviewed data that states on 8 oz glass of tap water contains the same amount of arsenic as 165,000 cigarettes?”

    First off, I did make one mistake – it should have been an 16oz. glass of water, not an 8oz. I was going by memory and slipped up here. With an 8oz glass of water, you’d only need to smoke just over 78,000 cigarettes (What the average smoker smokes over the course of about 11 years.) Here’s the data: You can see from the EPA’s own website that they have set the restrictions of safe arsenic levels in water at 10 parts per billion. ( http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/index.html ) If you do the math, you’ll find that this translates into 10 nanograms per gram – which also translates into about 2,500 nanograms for an 8oz. glass of water. The Massachusetts Benchmark Study – (Borgerding MF, Bodnar JA, Wingate DE. The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study: the Final Report. Conducted for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Boston, MA Massachusetts Department of Public Health 2000 -can’t find a direct web-link to the study, sorry.) found that the average brand content of arsenic was 32 nanograms. (I.e. – You’d have to actually EAT 4 packs of cigarettes to exceed the EPA’s safe arsenic exposure level for 1 8oz. glass of water.) Given dilution principles in most moderately ventilated smoking situations, along with combustion waste rates, actual human exposure levels translates into roughly 1/1000th of the content level – or, about .032 nanograms per cigarette. Which, if you’ll do the math, you will see translates into about 78,000 cigarettes to 1 8 Oz. glass of water.

    “Also, isn’t it funny that when you quote the WHO to ‘prove’ your point, the data is set in stone, but when someone tries to do the same to show the other side, you critizise it as being meaningless?”

    You appear confused… who said the data is set in stone? My whole point is to show how the numbers are dubious. I’m using the anti-tobacco’s lobby’s own numbers to refute themselves – This does nothing but show that their data can’t be trusted, and their motives, tactics and conclusions are disingenuous.

    “I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things.”

    Read: I swallow what I’m fed, and base my opinions on assumption and blind faith in the establishment.

    “Where do you get all your information? You cited a few links. The first one tries to bash the credibility of the WHO, but it is almost 10 years old.”

    The first one doesn’t merely attempt to bash the credibility of the W.H.O. – it documents an abject lie carried out by the W.H.O. What difference does the age of the documentation make? If I tell you today that I’m the King of Spain, all I have to do is wait 10 years and magically it’s not a lie anymore???

    “I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things…. which I figure a number of them are probably free lance and have no ties to the WHO, or the WHO’s agenda… I’m sure if they really were legitimately lying, there would be a lot more recent references to it.”

    You repeatedly operate on assumption and reliance on authority. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy.

    “The other article is basically just arguing semantics”

    Huh??? The second article is from the Journal of Theoretics and is wholly based on crunching raw numbers – how in the hell can you argue semantics with math? Do you even know what the word means??? Or, did you not read the document? All of their sources are cited.

    “But if you eat fast food, you are only hurting you. Not those around you. However, smoking is bad for you too, but when you smoke near me, it now becomes harmful to my health as well, and that is not right.”

    Oh stop with the infantile “it hurts me too!” anti-smoking nonsense. Every day you do things that hurts others, but my guess is you don’t mind so much about those things, do you? No, it’s perfectly fine for anti-smokers to engage in all sorts of harmful activity that they don’t possess a visceral dislike for. Do you drive a car? Make use of public transportation? Wear or use any plastic products? Use electronic equipment of any type? Drink alcohol? Eat beef? Patronize public eating establishments? If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you’re a hypocrite.

    “I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger”

    Uhhh… you can’t “be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger” Unless you’re planning on bringing your hamburger pre-cooked from home, or enjoy the taste of raw hamburger.

    “If you promise to put your cigarette out before I walk past you on the side walk, then I will promise not to regurgitate my burger into your stomach”

    I’ll tell ya what – If you promise not to drive your car by me on the street, to discontinue the use of any and all electronic equipment that adds to the need for dirty electrical generation facilities, and radio-wave emanating power-lines, agree to discontinue using any plastic products that require manufacturing facilities that poison my water supply, and discontinue eating range reared animal meat that causes top-soil depletion and toxic waste run-off, then I’ll promise to put my cigarette out when you walk by me on the street. Deal?

    “Sounds kinda gross, but at least you have a choice to keep your mouth closed when I try to force feed you a burger. I can’t stop breathing while you smoke.”

    Uhhh… you could try not going to where people are already gathered and smoking. Ever think of that? Just like I don’t make a habit of frequenting places where people are engaged in activity that I have a dislike for. The difference is, because I’m not an anti-smoker, I don’t think that I have a birth-right to be able to go anywhere I please, and have every living human on the planet immediately alter their behavior in order to accommodate me and what I happen to find distasteful. As a non-anti-smoker, unfortunately, I wasn’t born the inalienable right to never have to endure any annoyance that might come my way.

    “I don’t care what you do to yourself, it is your choice. But when it affects others that choose not to smoke, then I have a problem with it….”

    And, why exactly is it smoking that you’ve picked to be concerned about? Why not any of the other myriad of activities that humans regularly engage in that affects others in a negative way?

    And, can you explain exactly how my choice to smoke affects others that choose not to smoke? I mean, jeez! I can barely remember the last time I tied a non-smoker to a chair and forced him to inhale my cigarette smoke.

  30. “The statement about tabacco causing 80-90% of all lung cancers is not meaningless.”

    Uhhh, no… it is meaningless. I explain why in my previous comment, and your proclamation does nothing to refute that.

    “It does not say anything about the total number of smokers. It talks about the total number of cancer cases. So (using your widget analogy) there may be 100,000 smokers. 1,000 of them may contract lung cancer through their lives. What the statistics are saying is that of those 1,000 people, 8-9k will get cancer as a direct result from smoking.”

    You didn’t read what I wrote, did you?

    Listen, read slowly, and try to understand:

    90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking. We’ll take that, for the purposes of illustration, as being true.

    Scenario #1 – 10,000,000 people smoke. 10 smokers get lung cancer. 9 of them (90%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking = (roughly) 1 in a million.

    Scenario #2 – 10,000,000 people smoke. 1,000,000 of them get lung cancer. 900,000 of them (90%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking – (roughly) 1 in 10

    In both cases the 90% figure holds true. So, on its own, what does the 90% figure tell us about the dangers of smoking in regards to contracting cancer? NOTHING! It’s MEANINGLESS! 100% MEANINGLESS!

    Now, lets say that only 20% of lung cancer is caused by smoking:

    Scenario #3 – 10,000,000 people smoke, 10,000,000 smokers get lung cancer. 2,000,000 of them (20%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking = 1 in 5.

    Now, for the sake of argument, lets say that only one of the the above scenarios could be true. As a smoker, should I be more worried if I found out that the 90% figure was true, or the 20% figure?

    In fact, as a smoker, given the above scenario, I’d be at LESS RISK if 90% of lung cancers were caused by smoking than I would if only 20% were caused by smoking!!!

    WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE 90% STATISTIC? IT’S A MEANINGLESS STATISTIC!!!!

    It’s used by the anti-smoking lobby to manufacture a false sense of fear and hysteria in the public psyche. Because, they understand that most people are statistically illiterate, and in the minds of most people, when they are exposed to the information: “90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking” it translates in their brain to “If I smoke, there’s a 90% chance I’ll get lung cancer.” Which, of course, is entirely false.Ergo, the usage of such statistics is entirely, and purposefully misleading and disingenuous.

  31. I love it when I hit a nerve :-)
    I’m not going to join you in the bantering back and forth as you and I both know it gets us no where.
    But I will comment on a few points, just for fun.
    ““I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger”

    Uhhh… you can’t “be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger” Unless you’re planning on bringing your hamburger pre-cooked from home, or enjoy the taste of raw hamburger.

    Okay, so you read through my entire post about cigarette smoke, and the only time I say smoke without the word cigarette in front of it, you think I mean grill smoke instead. I know you did that on purpose, but common, you knew what I meant. And besides, in some cultures steak tar tar (raw ground beef) is a delicacy,
    I’m not forcing you to drink tap water. If you live in Michigan (where you quoted the information on the tap water) and the water really is still that bad (again, I’m sure after 7 or 8 years the city/state would work to clean up the water supplies. If they don’t write to congress because now you live in third world conditions) then you can always drink bottled water. If your manufacturing plants are polluting your water ways and your air and congress isn’t working to help cut down on all that, then move to a different state (if it really bothers you that much). I know where I live, the water sheds are not the cleanest in the world, and our filtration systems don’t catch all the contaminates, but by the time the water gets to my glass, it is within acceptable levels of contamination. And because my body is relatively healthy, it can remove these small levels of contaminates out before they do any harm. So for me, none of that is an issue, but you obviously see a problem with it. I just get a kick out of the fact you don’t believe what people say about the harmful effects of smoking (tobacco) but you jump right on the band wagon as soon as someone says the water is tainted, because this fits your world view. We are both hypocrites, as almost all humans are.
    And I picked tobacco smoke as the thing I choose to fight because I know that if I were to inhale someone’s second hand smoke, it would be detrimental to my health. Car exhaust is not as bad as everyone thinks. There are just as many stats out there both for and against the harmful effects of carbon fuel pollution as there is regarding tobacco. And just as you keep saying, the stats are meaningless. The one I like the best is about carbon monoxide causing global warming which will cause the next ice age… did you get that… the ‘next’ ice age. There have already been several in Earth’s history, long before humans started generating CO2. What caused it the previous times? This means that humans only generate a one in 5 chance of causing an ice age. Personally, I think the next ice age would have happened with or without our help.

    But all of this is completely useless and off topic. The real question is weather or not tobacco smoke causes cancer. I say that yes it does based on the information I have gathered and the personal experiences with it I have had. You say that no it doesn’t, for the exact same reasons. Is there any absolute truth in any of this? Well, yes, the only absolute truth is that we are all going to die. Statistically speaking, births have a 100% fatality rate. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236) Of those 100%, in today’s current demographic (in the US at least), cancer kills 0.002% of the population (approx. 558,600 people) each year. Source from: http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls
    Of those, 194,400 die due to the types of cancers that are usually attributed to smoking/chewing tobacco. Now seeing as how most researchers seem to agree that smoking cigarettes causes 80-90% of all cancer deaths (according to the sources I searched) then that means that each year between 155,520 – 174,960 die due to using tobacco products. Even if you want to use your 8% value, that still equates to 15,520 people that die each year because they use tobacco. That is 15,000 mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends, aunts, uncles, children that die from something that is preventable. Yes, they will all die from some other cause at a later point, but if you can prolong your life for as long as possible, why would you not want to? By making one small change to your life you can easily live another 10-15 years. That is 15 more Christmases with family and friends. 15 more years loving your wife/husband. 15 more years watching your children grow. Why would you not want that? Why are you so against living as long as you can?
    Take the whole cancer equation out of the picture for a minute. Smoking causes a whole slew of other health problems: Nervous twitching (you know, the shakes you get when you haven’t had a cigarette for a while, FYI: that’s not normal), the yellow stained finger tips, the dry, cracked, wrinkled skin long before your age dictates it should be like that, the dry cough, the constant need to remove phlegm, the fact it takes twice as long to recover from a cold as it should. All these things are caused by smoking cigarettes. You may not have all these symptoms, you may not even have any of them, but you will. And it will happen because you smoke.
    Personally, I would not want any of my friends to have to suffer through this, so I don’t hang with smokers.

  32. Oh, and one more reason why I am against smoking:
    “Uhhh… you could try not going to where people are already gathered and smoking. Ever think of that? Just like I don’t make a habit of frequenting places where people are engaged in activity that I have a dislike for.”
    Thats kind of hard when they all gather right out front of the door ways to places. I have to come and go into these places, and i have to hold my breath everytime. Then when I do finally get past them, my hair and clothes all reak of cigarette smoke. Tell me, where is my choice, and how is that fair? I don’t drink, dance or like loud music either, so I stay away from bars. But smokers are everywhere and I can’t avoid them in every situation.

  33. Okay, so you read through my entire post about cigarette smoke, and the only time I say smoke without the word cigarette in front of it, you think I mean grill smoke instead. I know you did that on purpose, but common, you knew what I meant.

    Yes, I knew exactly what you meant – that was the point. You don’t mind restaurants that subject patrons to the kind of smoke that you enjoy, but the kind of smoke that you don’t enjoy is a no-no for everybody. Why is that? Grilling meat releases almost all of the same chemicals into the atmosphere as cigarette smoke and at a much, much higher volume. Why is that ok? Shouldn’t there be a ban on cooking food in restaurants? What if I’m a raw-foodist? Should I have to be subjected to your grill smoke? Why should you get to force your unhealthy habits on me? I mean, if you want to cook food in the privacy of your own home, that’s your business… but, when you FORCE me to inhale your toxic grill smoke, that’s where your rights end.

    I’m not forcing you to drink tap water. If you live in Michigan (where you quoted the information on the tap water) and the water really is still that bad (again, I’m sure after 7 or 8 years the city/state would work to clean up the water supplies.

    What are you talking about? Typical anti-smoker! You didn’t even read the argument that was presented to you. You think you can advocate stripping people of liberties on the basis of complete self-ignorance. The only study I cited that was “from” some place, was from Massachusetts, not Michigan, and it said nothing at all about drinking water! That study detailed arsenic levels in cigarettes. The information I cited on arsenic levels in drinking water was from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and it merely listed what the EPA has deemed safe levels of arsenic in drinking water. It said nothing about if those levels had been exceeded in any location!?!?!?

    If your manufacturing plants are polluting your water ways and your air and congress isn’t working to help cut down on all that, then move to a different state (if it really bothers you that much).

    Oh, wonderful! You’re all for me moving to a different state to avoid my annoyance, but anti-smokers can’t even tolerate having to go to the smoke-free restaurant next-door, 20 feet away? Incredible!

    And because my body is relatively healthy, it can remove these small levels of contaminates out before they do any harm.

    I’ve just shown how the trace amounts of adverse chemicals in tobacco smoke are well below that of tap-water. But you claim that your body can deal perfectly fine with the chemicals in water, but not the ones in tobacco smoke??? Please explain to me what sort of magic takes place that makes the human body less able to cope with exposure to the exact same chemicals, in much smaller doses, in tobacco smoke, and more able to cope with the exact same chemicals at much higher doses in water!?!?! Can you explain that one to me? I’m amazed!

    I just get a kick out of the fact you don’t believe what people say about the harmful effects of smoking (tobacco) but you jump right on the band wagon as soon as someone says the water is tainted, because this fits your world view.

    Who’s jumping on any bandwagons? What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about how dangerous water is! You’re horribly confused! I don’t believe water is unduly harmful, and never claimed such at any time. I was merely putting things into perspective – if you think tobacco smoke is a horrible killer, then you must think water is too. Otherwise, you’re completely irrational. I happen to think that tobacco smoke is not nearly, by any stretch of the imagination, as horrible a killer as public consensus currently holds it to be… so, from that, you should be able to see how I feel about drinking water. YOU’RE THE ONE SAYING WATER IS DANGEROUS!! – by proxy of your smoking argument!

    And I picked tobacco smoke as the thing I choose to fight because I know that if I were to inhale someone’s second hand smoke, it would be detrimental to my health.

    And, WHY do you know that? …oh, yeah… right… that’s what you’ve been told.

    Car exhaust is not as bad as everyone thinks.

    Are you for real??? You’ve just written pages arguing that tobacco smoke is wholly dangerous. Car exhaust puts out almost all of the same toxins as tobacco smoke, plus a bunch that aren’t in tobacco smoke, except that a single, idling car, puts them out at a much, much, much. much, higher rate of cubic feet per minute than does a room full of heavy smokers. How can car exhaust then be “not as bad as everyone thinks” while, at the same time, the inhalation of tobacco smoke is some sort of automatic death sentence?

    Of those 100%, in today’s current demographic (in the US at least), cancer kills 0.002% of the population (approx. 558,600 people) each year. Source from: http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls
    >Of those, 194,400 die due to the types of cancers that are usually attributed to smoking/chewing tobacco. Now seeing as how most researchers seem to agree that smoking cigarettes causes 80-90% of all cancer deaths (according to the sources I searched)

    You didn’t search any reliable sources apparently. Look at the numbers you’ve just provided: What’s 90% of 558,600? Answer: 502,740… HUH??? What happened to the other 308,340 people? They just disappeared!!! Like magic!!! I thought your “sources” said smoking causes “80%-90% of all cancer deaths”??? In fact, 194,400 is under 35% of 558,600… strange how it just doesn’t add up. Isn’t it?

    then that means that each year between 155,520 – 174,960 die due to using tobacco products. Even if you want to use your 8% value, that still equates to 15,520 people that die each year because they use tobacco. That is 15,000 mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends, aunts, uncles, children that die from something that is preventable. Yes, they will all die from some other cause at a later point, but if you can prolong your life for as long as possible, why would you not want to?

    So, we should all immediately cease any activity which carries with it a risk of death? That’s what you’re saying? So, I should never again drive a car, go skiing, take a bath, eat sweets, leave my house, etc., etc., etc.,… Death from all of those things is preventable. If you can prolong your life for as long as possible, why would you not want to?

    By making one small change to your life you can easily live another 10-15 years.

    Says who? The fact of the matter is the majority of smokers live to around the age of average life expectancy. Most life-long smokers live into their 70s, a sizable portion live into their 80s, some live into their 90s, and a few live past 100. By giving up smoking, you might, perhaps, maybe, extend your life span – perhaps even significantly. But the odds are greatly in your favour that whether you smoke or not, you’re probably going to die sometime around the age of 75, give or take a few years.

    That is 15 more Christmases with family and friends. 15 more years loving your wife/husband. 15 more years watching your children grow. Why would you not want that? Why are you so against living as long as you can?

    What an absurd question. I could just as easily ask you why you’re so against living a long life that’s not worth living? It’s absurd.

    Take the whole cancer equation out of the picture for a minute. Smoking causes a whole slew of other health problems: Nervous twitching (you know, the shakes you get when you haven’t had a cigarette for a while, FYI: that’s not normal),

    Yeah, I’ve yet to meet a single smoker that does that, unless they’re trying to quit and have gone days on end without a cigarette – and even then, physical twitching is rare and usually only occurs in smokers who had an excessive habit. I know people who suffer the same symptoms when they haven’t had caffeine in as long, sugar, or even video games. Stop with the regurgitated anti-smoking propaganda nonsense already.

    the yellow stained finger tips,

    I know of maybe two, maybe three smokers with yellow stained finger tips. All of them have poor hygiene habits.

    the dry, cracked, wrinkled skin long before your age dictates it should be like that,

    I know as many non-smokers with such an affliction as I do smokers.

    the dry cough,

    Personally I don’t have a persistent cough. I know a few smokers that do. Practically all of them smoke to excess.

    the constant need to remove phlegm,

    See above.

    the fact it takes twice as long to recover from a cold as it should.

    I’ve never met a single smoker in otherwise good health to which the above applies.

    All these things are caused by smoking cigarettes. You may not have all these symptoms, you may not even have any of them, but you will. And it will happen because you smoke.

    Says who, and how do they know? Or, are you just talking out of your ass again?

    Personally, I would not want any of my friends to have to suffer through this, so I don’t hang with smokers.

    That’s your prerogative.

  34. Thats kind of hard when they all gather right out front of the door ways to places. I have to come and go into these places, and i have to hold my breath everytime. Then when I do finally get past them, my hair and clothes all reak of cigarette smoke. Tell me, where is my choice, and how is that fair?

    You know, the shameless and unmitigated audacity of anti-smokers never ceases to amaze me! The reason smoker’s are all gathered around doorways IS BECAUSE YOU PUT THEM THERE!!!!!! There was the option for establishments and workplaces to provide smokers with separately ventilated smoking rooms, But that wasn’t good enough for the anti-smoking lobby! There HAD to be a total ban, with NO tolerance or accommodation whatsoever. Why? Because the anti-smoking movement isn’t a public health issue, it’s a fascist, forced behaviour modification movement.

    So, you whined and cried and took away the option of separately ventilated smoking areas that would reasonably accommodate both smokers and non-smokers alike, and now you whine and cry that smokers are gathering in the places THAT YOU’VE RELEGATED THEM TO!!!

    Pathetic.

    I’m sorry if 4 seconds of exposure to ridiculously diluted trace levels of chemicals on the order of 1 part in several billion every time you walk through a doorway is too much for you to bear, but perhaps you should have thought about that when your ilk were whining like little babies until you got your way and forced all the smokers out into those doorways?

  35. Nicotine disrupts the normal flow of communication between your nervous system and the muscles. This affects all smokers, but is more prevalent in people with MS. At the end of each nerve ending is a chemical membrane. This membrane carries electrical impulses from the nerve ending to the nerve sensor found in the muscle. As the amount of nicotine in the blood increases, the nerve ending becomes clogged by the nicotine and as a result, the chemical membrane is unable to pass the electrical signal through. This is what causes the nerve to twitch as the brain sends a signal down to indicate to the body that there is a malfunction. Once you take a drag on a cigarette, the new influx of nicotine causes the nerve ending to open up again allowing the electrical signals to pass through fine. But as soon as you stop smoking, the ending closes over again, and the twitching continues. The more you smoke, the more nerve endings will be affected and the greater the shakes will become. Again, most smokers probably will not notice this much (unless they are really heavy smokers) as there are millions of nerve endings. But it is happening to you whether you feel it or not.

    Listen to yourself! Your explanation is self-contradictory. It makes no sense – typical anti-smoker rubbish…. You’re saying the nerve endings become clogged with nicotine, not allowing signals to pass, and so twitching happens. Yet, when a smoker goes without a cigarette for an extended period time (nicotine levels in the body decrease) this is when the twitching occurs??? You further claim that increasing the levels of nicotine in the system alleviates the condition. Huh? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? If nicotine clogged nerve endings are the culprit, shouldn’t the symptoms become better as nicotine levels fall, and worse as they rise???

    And, if you “don’t notice it”, then who cares? There’s nicotine in tomatoes and egg-plants, among other vegetables. Logically, the same symptoms must be occurring in people who eat such foods, even if they don’t notice it, but who cares? It’s obviously not occurring to such a degree to pose any serious detrimental health effects.

    Read: http://thescooponsmoking.org/index.php specifically: http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/effects/nervousGW.php for more information on this.
    If you believe this to be simply anti-smoking propaganda, than I can only conclude that you are a conspiracy theorist and probably don’t believe man has landed on the moon either.

    It is anti-smoking propaganda! It’s the ACSH FOR PETE’S SAKE! See: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_council_on_science_and_health.html

    Notice who their top contributers are???

    http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/ACSH-Koop.htm
    http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/ashes.html
    http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/ACSH-Employee-View.htm

    But you don’t even need to bother with all of that, you should be able to see for yourself:

    Take a look at that site for God’s sake and open your eyes. It’s nothing but unsubstantiated proclamation. They cite no sources at all. And, they are clearly engaged in thinly veiled attempts at inciting undue fear and hysteria. Take a look at this page for instance: http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/effects/shy-dragerSyndrome.php

    Are you kidding me? It’s ONE damn sentence that is nothing but an empty proclamation. I could put a web page up that contains one sentence that says: “Orange juice will cause you to grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead.” Would that make it true?

    Then they go on to talk about all of these exceedingly rare diseases, such as “reflex sympathetic dystrophy” that smoking effects in an adverse way. So what? A million different things effect a million different diseases adversely. Diabetics can’t eat sugar, and if you consume too much sugar as a non-diabetic, you increase your chances of developing adult onset diabetes. So, by the same logic, sugar is necessarily bad… except that… oh, yeah… you DIE if you completely cut sugar out of your diet. How many people have you ever heard of with “reflex sympathetic dystrophy”? How many have you ever heard of with diabetes? It’s fear mongering, nothing more. Even though about 20% of the population smokes (over 60 million people in the U.S.) I’ve never heard of a single person with reflex sympathetic dystrophy – I’m sure they’re out there – but I’ve never heard of one. I think it logical to conclude that the disorder is exceedingly rare. So, why should I be overly concerned with how smoking affects it? Answer: I shouldn’t.

    And, stop with the attempted insertion of logical fallacies, your “conspiracy theorist” business is an attempt to inject a red herring. As a matter of fact, I do believe we landed on the moon. But, even if I didn’t, what would that have to do with the topic being discussed, or the validity of my opinions in relation to this topic?

    There is way too much evidence out there for the fact that smoking is detrimental to your health. You can read the evidence for yourself and choose to believe it or you can choose to believe the ‘smoking is good for you’ evidence. It’s up to you, but when your spouse is dying in the hospital bed of lung cancer, because of your smoking habits, I can only hope that you come to the right conclusion about cigarette smoke.

    There is a very, very slim chance that my spouse will ever end up on a hospital bed dying from lung cancer – an even slimmer chance that if such were to occur, it would be due to my smoking.

    Oh, and please stop trying to pick apart my posts line by line looking for a few typos, failed geography lessons, etc… and just comment on the points that you understand I was making.

    When did I point out a typo? Show me please… yeah, that’s what I thought. Failed geography lesson? Huh? I presented sources (that you specifically asked for by the way) and your error in mistaking Michigan for Massachusetts wasn’t a “failed geography lesson” it was a clear indication that you didn’t read the material provided upon your own request, thus neglecting to inform yourself of the argument being presented. If you’re going to misrepresent arguments, I’m going to call you on it – if you don’t like it, tough – stop arguing.

    What? You think that you should just be able to present any information you feel like, no matter how valid, no matter how logical, no matter if it makes sense or not, or in how much error, and expect to win the argument – much less be taken seriously?

    Doesn’t surprise me… it’s typical anti-smoker attitude.

    So please, for the sake of everyone else, your response should be with merit and sources to back up your claims.

    Wow, you’re really some piece of work, you know that? The sheer audacity is staggering. I’m the ONLY person involved in this discussion that has so far provided ANY SOURCES AT ALL to back up my arguments.

  36. As for the information regarding the effects of nicotine on the nervous system, I will try to explain it again. It is not contradictory.
    Picture a nerve ending as a straw. The end is open and allows the electrical signal to pass freely in and out of the nerve. As you smoke, nicotine is carried by the blood system through all the nerves to the nerve ending and rests on the sides of the straw. As long as new nicotine is being carried to the nerve ending, everything is great. As soon as you put out that one cigarette, the nicotine that has been building up on the sides of the straw, collapses and covers the opening. Thus limiting the ability for the nerve ending to receive the signals from the nerve sensors. This causes the shaking. When you light up a second cigarette and start smoking it, the new influx of nicotine in the blood once again pushes open the collapsed nicotine at the end of the straw and adds more nicotine to it. After you stop smoking that cigarette, the nicotine again collapses and fills in the whole.

    I did not say that increasing nicotine in the system alleviates the symptoms in the way that the problem is going away; I said that it alleviates the symptoms as long as you are still adding new levels of nicotine, because it temporarily re-opens the nerve ending. Once that cigarette is put out, the nicotine collapses and covers the ending again. I apologize if this still isn’t clear, but I don’t really know how else to explain it. If you stop smoking all together, say quit cold turkey, you will start to get the twitching as all the built up nicotine collapses and fills in the nerve ending. After a few days, weeks, months or what ever (depending on your overall health and your body’s ability to heal) the nicotine will be carried away from your nerve endings from the blood and get filtered out through your liver and kidneys and eventually your waste system will excrete it from your body. As this process takes place, the twitching will start to subside. Hopefully this helps explain it a bit more, but if not just let me know what part(s) you do not understand and I will try again.

    As far as “if you don’t notice it, who cares?” question: You should care. Most of the time you cannot feel when something is wrong in your body until the damage has already been done. Just because you feel fine, doesn’t mean you aren’t sick. Take AIDS for example. This disease is very real, and can be very fatal, but you have no idea that you have it until the common cold almost kills you… Cancer works in much the same way. Depending on the type of cancer, you may feel a decrease in your energy levels, but other than that, you generally feel fine until the cancer cells start shutting down different organs.
    The nicotine levels found in foods are normally digested by the stomach acids and not carried through the blood stream as direct nicotine. Your body uses what ever enzymes it needs from the nicotine (that the acids separated) and throws the rest away in the form of stool. Smoking cigarettes causes the pure nicotine to enter the blood stream and the body has no way of breaking it down at that point (as I said earlier though, it will remove it once the blood stream stops receiving new levels of nicotine)

    Moving on…
    Here is some information from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is wholly funded by the US Federal Government (which, by the way, the Government makes more money from tobacco related taxes than any other source, so why would they be supportive of something that could affect their revenue? Seeing as how you like to discredit every single anti-smoking source based on who pays their bills)

    http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

    Sure the data is also over 10 years old, but hey, if you can use it, why can’t I? I really highly doubt that tobacco has become healthier in the last decade.

    There is also some good info on the Center for Disease Control site:
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm
    But again, you will try to discredit their findings even though they are funded by the government too.

    The reason why I said you sound like a conspiracy theorist is because, by definition:

    Conspiracy theorist: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts.

    Every site I quote you seem to think is out to get big tobacco because apparently all their money comes from people who have some big financial gain from getting people to quit, like drug companies. But wouldn’t a drug company make more money selling drugs to sick people than to healthy people? Why would these companies spend money to try to convince people to quit? Sure they make money by selling patches and other stop-smoking medications, but in the long run, they would make a lot more money by not funding these anti-smoking organizations in the first place and instead selling pain relievers and what not that can mask the symptoms. So it just doesn’t make logical sense for these companies to do this, hence the conspiracy theory.
    Also, one of the funding partners for the ACSH was (is) the Anheuser-Busch Foundation. Doesn’t smoking and drinking kinda go hand in hand? Why would an alcohol company want people to quit smoking? It doesn’t make any sense. And what does Kraft have to gain from people quitting? And General Electric? I don’t know of any product they sell that would be affected either way by smoking (except maybe smoke detectors – but even then they would want people to smoke so that they could sell more detectors…) So what kind of secret agreement could these companies possibly have with the ACSH to get people to stop smoking? No one gains financially from it, and some may even be hurt by it.

    You say that you are the only one providing links in this discussion to back up your arguments, but all your links are links that attempt to discredit the links I provided. Surely you must have some links to scientific journals or something of that nature that supports your idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer, which is the actual question in, um… question… You mentioned one near the beginning of this page, but it is a dead link now, so I have no idea what it was trying to say. Aside from the links you provided to try and shoot my sources down, you only showed: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
    Which talks a lot about weather smoking causes cancer or increases the risk of contracting cancer. (This is what I was referring to when I said it was arguing semantics earlier). Funny thing is that almost all the references this article has are references that state smoking does cause cancer.
    Ex:
    • Pisani P, Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990, Int J Cancer 1999 Sep 24;83(1):18-29; “Tobacco smoking and chewing are almost certainly the major preventable causes of cancer today.”
    • American Thoracic Society, Cigarette smoking and health.. , Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 153(2):861-5 1996; “Cigarette smoking remains the primary cause of preventable death and morbidity in the United States.”
    • Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; “Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women.”
    • Skurnik Y, Shoenfeld Y Health effects of cigarette smoking, Clin Dermatol 1998 Sep-Oct;16(5):545-56 “Cigarette smoking, the chief preventable cause of illness and death in the industrialized nations.”
    (Emphasis theirs, not mine)
    The link you provided regarding the arsenic levels in water simply talked about what the EPA had set as an acceptable drinking level, and that all US water systems must comply with that amount by January 2006. So chances are, water is now safe to drink in the US! YA!! You showed nothing about the average amount of arsenic in an average cigarette. So what links have you provided to back up your original claim about the relationship between smoking and cancer?

    PS: These posts would look shorter (and better) if the page was formatted wider :)

  37. Picture a nerve ending as a straw. The end is open and allows the electrical signal to pass freely in and out of the nerve…the nicotine again collapses and fills in the whole.

    Yadda, yadda, yadda… your contention is that more of a clogging agent causes less of a clog, and less of clogging agent causes more of a clog. This is highly counter-intuitive. Please provide a source that documents the mechanics of such an odd process. I can find nothing.

    By the way, nicotine is non-ferrous, and such minuscule amounts should operate as a piss-poor insulator to be sure… So, I think you’re likely talking about chemical signals, and not electrical ones?

    I did not say that increasing nicotine in the system alleviates the symptoms in the way that the problem is going away; I said that it alleviates the symptoms as long as you are still adding new levels of nicotine, because it temporarily re-opens the nerve ending.

    Yeah, and that’s my point. It’s self-contradictory. Your contention is that nicotine intake causes a clog which is responsible for the symptom. But, more of the clogging agent equals less of a clog, and an alleviation of the symptom, and vice versa. Unless you can back that up with a documented mechanism of how the nicotine is achieving such a bizarre act, then your explanation, on its face, is self-contradictory.

    Hopefully this helps explain it a bit more, but if not just let me know what part(s) you do not understand and I will try again.

    I understand it just fine. I just don’t think that you do. You appear to be retro-fitting your explanation as I find holes.

    The nicotine levels found in foods are normally digested by the stomach acids and not carried through the blood stream as direct nicotine. Your body uses what ever enzymes it needs from the nicotine (that the acids separated) and throws the rest away in the form of stool.

    Hmmm… odd… since it’s been documented that dietary nicotine intake confounds nicotine level findings from tobacco inhalation in people. How do you figure that’s happening if the nicotine from vegetables isn’t entering the blood stream??? Also odd is the fact that dietary nicotine has been used as a natural remedy for depression for quite some time… again, odd if none of it is getting into the blood stream.

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/6/437?

    Perhaps you should give a rest to just making stuff up as you go along?

    Here is some information from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is wholly funded by the US Federal Government (which, by the way, the Government makes more money from tobacco related taxes than any other source, so why would they be supportive of something that could affect their revenue? Seeing as how you like to discredit every single anti-smoking source based on who pays their bills)

    http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

    Sure the data is also over 10 years old, but hey, if you can use it, why can’t I? I really highly doubt that tobacco has become healthier in the last decade.

    Here we go again! You antis never get tired of the same old canards do you?

    The EPA findings that you post above were vacated in a federal U.S. court, and reprimanded by a congressional enquiry and the U.S. Department of Energy

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm
    http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html
    http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/EPA.html

    It was allowed to stand on a technicality in appeals court by a judge who found the first court to have operated outside of its jurisdiction. But the appeals court DID NOT overturn the findings of the original court. I.e. – The original court said it was all a pack of lies and misrepresentions, the appeals court agreed with the federal court, but claimed that the federal court didn’t have the proper jurisdiction to make the finding.

    I.e. – as far as the law is concerned, it’s all a pack of lies and misrepresentations, but because of a technicality, there’s not much they can do about it.

    But, the anits just wont put it away. They keep bringin it out and bringing it out.

    There is also some good info on the Center for Disease Control site:
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm
    But again, you will try to discredit their findings even though they are funded by the government too.

    Its kind of pathetic that you didn’t try to discredit it yourself. Did you follow their sources? Their first citation is: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021441.htm In the second paragraph they admit to basing the findings on SAMMEC data. Do you know what SAMMEC is? Probably not, because you’re an anti-smoker and don’t need to inform yourself as to the validity of the information you use to form your infallible opinions. SAMMEC is a computer program that GUESSES how many people die from certain things. SAMMEC data has been proven to be inherently flawed.

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm
    http://www.forces.org/articles/files/sammec.htm
    http://www.nycclash.com/ArticlesFolder/SAMMEC.html

    The reason why I said you sound like a conspiracy theorist is because, by definition:

    Conspiracy theorist: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts.

    Wonderful. By that definition I would hope you also count yourself as a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who didn’t would have to be a complete moron.

    Every site I quote you seem to think is out to get big tobacco because apparently all their money comes from people who have some big financial gain from getting people to quit, like drug companies. But wouldn’t a drug company make more money selling drugs to sick people than to healthy people? Why would these companies spend money to try to convince people to quit? Sure they make money by selling patches and other stop-smoking medications, but in the long run, they would make a lot more money by not funding these anti-smoking organizations in the first place and instead selling pain relievers and what not that can mask the symptoms. So it just doesn’t make logical sense for these companies to do this, hence the conspiracy theory.

    Of course it makes sense. Big-pharma gains huge amounts of money selling tobacco cessation products, each of which are known to have very poor success rates. Big-Pharma doesn’t want smokers to quit… it wants them to try to quit… and keep trying. How does it do this? By keeping everyone terrified, and making available a myriad of products that fail more often than they work.

    Example:
    Joe Smoker sees all of the irrational propaganda, and is taken in by the mass induced hysteria. He thinks “Man, I gotta quit right now, or I’m going to die!” So, he tires to quit, but, finding it difficult, decides to give nicotine gum a shot at making the transition a little easier for him. Cha-ching! Money in the pocket of Big-Pharma. Of course, the chances are great that Joe Smoker, gum or no gum, isn’t going to be successful in his attempt. Pretty soon, he’s smoking again.

    Some time passes, and Joe Smoker becomes fearful again and decides to give it another go. “Well, the gum didn’t work,” he thinks “maybe I’ll do better on the patch?” Cha-ching! More money in the pockets of Big-Pharma. Same story though – the patch doesn’t work, and after a while Joe is smoking again. Later on, Joe decides to give it another go. Of course, knowing that the gum and the patch were unsuccessful, Joe brings out the big guns and goes looking for a prescription for Zyban – CHA-CHING! and on it goes.

    Also, one of the funding partners for the ACSH was (is) the Anheuser-Busch Foundation. Doesn’t smoking and drinking kinda go hand in hand? Why would an alcohol company want people to quit smoking? It doesn’t make any sense. And what does Kraft have to gain from people quitting? And General Electric?

    You’re not making sense here?!?! Uhhh, Anheuser-Busch might possibly find some benefit in a few ACSH studies that find health benefits in alcohol consumption perhaps? Same with Kraft and GE in regards to their products. Who knows?

    I don’t get it… your contention is that in order for the ACSH to be reasonably suspected of bias, 100% of their funders must necessarily have an interest in showing tobacco in a bad light? Why?

    That makes no sense.

    It’s called operational bias, or incentive based bias. Having a dependency on any agent that has a financial stake in your findings automatically casts suspicion on those findings. The findings have to be thrown out as being useful in arriving at any solid conclusions – Especially in the field of epidemiology, which is extremely open and vulnerable to such biases.

    If a researcher funded by a tobacco company released an epidemiological study that showed cigarettes to be a super-health supplement, you’d be right to view it with suspicion. (and you wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theorist” because of your suspicion) And, it works both ways. Pharma. companys have a huge financial stake in keeping people terrified of tobacco. The findings of any agency that is supported by the pharmaceutical industry must be viewed with the same suspicion.

    Surely you must have some links to scientific journals or something of that nature that supports your idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer, which is the actual question in, um… question…

    Cancer failed to be induced in animal studies after exposing them to ridiculous amounts of mainstream smoke for extended periods:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=8616820&cmd=showdetailview

    Low dose radiation is a necessary factor in cancer development (I.e-smoking only a co-factor which CAN NOT play a role in cancer development if radiation exposure is not present)
    http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html

    Bronchioalveolar carcinoma (a non-smoking related cancer) is responsible for 25% of all lung cancers (hmmm… odd… what happened to 90% of all lung cancers caused by smoking???)
    http://www.data-yard.net/28/lung.htm

    From the abstract: “These results indicate there has been no important decline in either the absolute or relative death rates from all causes and lung cancer for cigarette smokers as a whole compared with never smokers in this large cohort, in spite of a substantial degree of smoking cessation.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10468422&dopt=AbstractPlus

    Australian smoking rates go up, lung cancer rates go down:
    http://www.data-yard.net/20/bjc.htm

    Fewer than 3% of smokers get lung cancer:
    http://www.data-yard.net/3/md0203_1.htm

    American Cancer Society finds no lung cancer risk for spouses of smokers:
    http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

    The WHO finds no link between lung cancer and SHS:
    http://193.78.190.200/2/12/1440.pdf

    …for a few.

    Which talks a lot about weather smoking causes cancer or increases the risk of contracting cancer. (This is what I was referring to when I said it was arguing semantics earlier).

    Yeah, and how does it do that? By crunching numbers with full citation and explanation on how it arrives at its conclusions? Do you even know what the word ‘semantics’ means?

    Funny thing is that almost all the references this article has are references that state smoking does cause cancer.

    Yes. Strange isn’t it? A wonderful expose on just how skewed epidemiology actually is in so many cases regarding this subject. It uses the anti’s own raw data to show how its conclusions are entirely unfounded and disingenuous.

    The link you provided regarding the arsenic levels in water simply talked about what the EPA had set as an acceptable drinking level, and that all US water systems must comply with that amount by January 2006. So chances are, water is now safe to drink in the US! YA!!

    Uh, yeah… that’s what it was supposed to do. Are you not paying attention? You specifically asked me to show how you get more arsenic out of a glass of water than you do from cigarettes. The EPA site provided what they deem a safe level of arsenic in tap water. The “Michigan” study showed that arsenic content in cigarettes is far, far below EPA standards for tap-water. At the level the EPA allows for SAFE tap-water, one 8 oz. glass contains as much arsenic as you’d ingest from roughly 78,000 cigarettes.

    You showed nothing about the average amount of arsenic in an average cigarette.

    Of course I did. PAY ATTENTION! I sourced it at YOUR OWN REQUEST!!!! Remember? You said it was “from Michigan.” – Borgerding MF, Bodnar JA, Wingate DE. The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study:
    the Final Report. Conducted for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Boston, MA Massachusetts Department of Public Health 2000 – Unfortunately, the article database that housed the report is down, so I can’t find a web link. But a Google Scholar search will turn up dozens of citations.

    So what links have you provided to back up your original claim about the relationship between smoking and cancer?

    I’ve provided some above… even though I shouldn’t have to. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I don’t have to prove that reading books DOESN’T cause cancer, I don’t have to prove that flapping your arms really fast doesn’t cause cancer. And, I don’t have to prove that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. If you want me to believe those things, the burden of proof is on you. You must provide the mechanics of a causal relationship, or solid evidence of a significant enough corollary relationship. If you can’t do that, and nobody yet has that I’ve ever seen, then we can safely say that to our best knowledge, smoking does not cause cancer. In fact, it’s the only honest and responsible thing we can say.

    And, P.S. – I’m slowly working on the site design as time becomes available.

  38. Very good! Thank you for the links. Give me some time to reveiw them all and I will get back to you. And for the description of how nicotine builds up at the ends of the nerve, I got that out of one of my high school biology books years ago. It has long since been lost, but I will do some more digging and see what I can find that might help explain it better, as you are still thinking of it in a reverse kinda way…

  39. Thats odd. I pasted a nice long comment and clicked submit, but it didn’t take. Is there a max. on the number of characters per comment?

    Luckily I saved it in Word at work, so I will try to post it again tomorrow.

    In the mean time, I came across something intersting while browsing the rest of your site. Mainly in relation to this:
    “I’ve provided some above… even though I shouldn’t have to. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I don’t have to prove that reading books DOESN’T cause cancer, I don’t have to prove that flapping your arms really fast doesn’t cause cancer. And, I don’t have to prove that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. If you want me to believe those things, the burden of proof is on you”

    On your page http://myblog.ottawaarts.com/archives/2006/09/richard-dawkins-teapot-atheists/
    you clearly say:
    “And, therein is where Dawkins’ trips up and displays his obvious lack of critical thinking. The fact of the matter is that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim. Neither “positive,” nor “negative” enter into the equation. If you make the claim “God does not exist,” then you have just as much of a burden to show why God can not exist, than anyone who makes the claim “God does exist.” If no proof or evidence is provided, then the responsible, rational default opinion is no opinion – a reservation of judgment; NOT disbelief. If evidence (short of proof) is provided, then a personal, subjective opinion based on the significance of that evidence may be made.”
    So the burdon of proof falls to anyone who is making the claim. You are claiming that, despite what all the medical organizations say, smoking does not cause cancer. So the burden of proof is indeed on you…..

  40. Okay, so I think my post has been lost to cyberspace somewhere. I just tried posting it again and your site said that I had already posted it. For some reason I just can’t see it. Maybe you have already responded as well, but I can’t see that either. Aside from my last post, the last entry I see is the spam one from Nikita about credit cards…

  41. You are claiming that, despite what all the medical organizations say, smoking does not cause cancer. So the burden of proof is indeed on you…..

    And, I’ve provided it. That does nothing to relieve you of your responsibility if you wish to convince the public of your claim.

    My claim is that smoking does not cause cancer. And, I do indeed have a burden to provide a sound argument for this claim. I do not, however, have any burden to refute your claim if you have not provided a sound argument for it. I.e. – If i can not prove my claim that smoking does not cause cancer, it doesn’t not automatically mean that the opposite is true by default. You still have your burden.

    Do you see how it works?

    Dawkins doesn’t have a burden to disprove the claim that God exists. Those making the claim that God exists have to the burden to prove their claim.

    I don’t have a burden to disprove that smoking causes cancer. Those that claim such have a burden to prove it.

    If those making either claim fail to fulfil their burden, the most that Dawkins and I can reasonably say is “There’s no reason for me to believe the claim is true.”

    However, if we take it a step further and make our own claim to the opposite – as Dawkins and I both have done – if we say, not only do I not accept the original claim as unsubstantiated, but I also believe the opposite to be true, then we take upon ourselves the burden to prove our claim.

    Therefore, it is not incumbent upon me to disprove that smoking causes cancer, and it is not incumbent upon Dawkins to disprove that God exists. Until, of course, such time as we make a claim ourselves – in each of these cases, our claims being the opposite of the original claim.

    If the opponents of both Dawkins and I cannot fulfil our burdens, and Dawkins and I also cannot fulfil our burdens, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it can not be determined whether or not smoking causes cancer, or if God exists or doesn’t.

    And, of course, I’m sure you’d agree that we cannot create legislation that strips people of civil liberties based on something which can not be determined, can we?

  42. The other side to all this is the simple fact that you and I cannot actually ‘prove’ anything. (At least, I can only assume you are not a scientist with a research grant/facility – I know I’m not) So all we can do is banter back and forth citing web links each stating our cases, but it doesn’t actually prove anything. Seeing as how you don’t agree with my links, and I don’t agree with yours the only thing left is to try and educate others that may stumble accross this with the information we found so that they can make their own decision on this.

    I did find something interesting however, and I’m looking forward to watching you rip it apart :-)
    One of my liks I posted above (I can’t remmeber exactly which one) pointed to a study by a company that was funded by a pharmacutical company. One of the other funding partners was Kraft. But according to Altria Group (One of the Big Tabacco companys) up until January of lst year, they owned 89% of the shares for Kraft Foods Inc. So this means that not only was a big pharma part of the financing for the study, so was a big tabacco. So I think that helps show that the results of the study were not biased towards any one position. But of course, you won’t agree :-)
    http://www.altria.com/about_altria/02_21_00_spinoffempinfo.asp

    Information on Altria’s support of political figures, but also has some info on the US District Court ruling of 2006 regarding the lies big tabacco were sharing.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?Ind=A02&cycle=2008

    I also came accross this information, but the organization is funded by Johnson & Johnson, so you won’t believe them, but hey, some one else might…

    http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/faq/details.cfm?fuseaction=faq.listFAQs&CFID=17154248&CFTOKEN=76930449&category_id=37#75

    Question:
    Is it true that the courts “invalidated” the US Environmental Protection Agency report that identified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen and cause of lung cancer in humans?
    Answer:
    In 1993 Big Tobacco sued the EPA in a North Carolina court, claiming procedural violations in the preparation of the report. Judge William Osteen, a former tobacco lobbyist, agreed with the tobacco industry. The EPA appealed and in late 2002 the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the EPA and threw out Big Tobacco’s case.

    The tobacco industry widely cites the original court ruling as if it was a scientific statement; it was not. The scientific consensus continued to support the EPA’s conclusion that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer. In any event, even Osteen’s procedural objections are now swept aside.

    There is no question that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer.

  43. Osteen was once retained as a private lawyer, in 1974, by a contingent of tobacco farmers to represent them in front of the Secretary of Agriculture while the secretary was hearing arguments regarding a proposed plan to eliminate the Federal tobacco production quota program. That’s the entire extent of Judge Osteen’s career as a “tobacco lobbyist.” …Do I perhaps detect a smattering of attempted deception on the part of the tobacco-Nazis on this one? To brand someone a “former tobacco lobbyist” in this case would seem a tad misleading to any rational human, would it not? Yet, you see it time and time again in anti-tobacco literature. E.g. “Osteen, a former tobacco lobbyist, upheld the ruling….”, “In 1998 Judge William Osteen, a former tobacco lobbyist, vacated the study…”, “Osteen was a lobbyist for the tobacco industry who became a judge!” etc., etc., They never elaborate on the exact extent of his role as a “tobacco lobbyist” however.

    In fact, Osteen’s subsequent record as a federal Judge has been decidedly unfavourable to the tobacco industry. But, you never hear about that from the anti’s when they discuss the EPA ruling. They never tell you about how Osteen once ruled cigarettes were “”drug-delivery devices” (his words) thus granting the FDA power to regulate them as such.

    Have you ever even read the actual Osteen ruling? Or, are you just going by what the anti-tobacco crusaders are feeding you? I’ve read it. It’s available here: http://www.junkscience.com/news2/osteen.htm

    Osteen vacated the EPA’s findings, based on the fact that the EPA had cherry-picked data in order to alter the outcome of their study to fit with their a-priori bias. Furthermore, the EPA withheld and refused to disclose significant portions of its findings, methods and reasoning regarding the study – all things which would have openly exposed the real EPA findings.

    In plain English: The EPA ran some studies, and the studies came to conclusions that the EPA didn’t like. They were expecting something else. So, the EPA went ahead and altered the findings, while wilfully hiding aspects that would expose such activities. A federal judge didn’t like it, and vacated the EPA’s findings. Or, in short: the study didn’t say what the EPA wanted it to say before they began the study, so the EPA MADE it say what they wanted it to say.

    Osteen’s ruling was PARTIALLY overturned by the fourth circuit court of appeals, but they IN NO WAY ever repudiated Osteen’s findings. They overturned his ruling on a technicality dealing with his bench’s jurisdiction over the case. The fourth circuit found that the case should have first been heard in a lower court. The fourth circuit found that Osteen’s ruling WAS VALID BUT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED. So, as the record stands, a federal court has officially ruled that the EPA deliberately lied and cheated in order to mislead the American public and paint SHS as something that they failed to find it actually was, and no Federal court has ever subsequently invalidated that finding.

    What’s more, the same EPA report that was the subject of that hearing was further declared invalid and meaningless by the U.S. Congressional Scientific Review Committee! And, it was heavily criticized by the U.S. Department of Energy. Even the Australian Supreme Court rejected the study!

    It was even found that the EPA had used earlier EPA studies in their meta-survey that THE EPA THEMSELVES had already discredited BEFORE the meta-study went ahead!!!! Can you believe that? There’s no depths to which anti-tobacco will refuse to sink. Yet, at the same time, they removed the largest independant study ever done to that date from their meta-analysis AFTER they saw that the inclusion of that study severely diluted the risk assessment that they were hoping to achieve.

    But, do you ever hear about all of that from the anti-tobacco fascists? Of course not! Why? Because they are every bit as much liars, cheats and low-life scoundrels as big tobacco. …more so, probably.

    “The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking…. Even at the greatest exposure levels….very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS.” -Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk,” CRS, Nov. 14, 1995 (statement made by the U.S. Congressional Scientific Review Committee regarding the EPA findings)

    “The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk.”
    - Federal Focus, Vol VIII, NO. 11, 1993 (referring to the Australian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the EPA data)

    Everything we currently “know” about the dangers of SHS is completely based on flawed, invalid, junk pseudo-science. It would seem that that much, at least, is inarguable.

  44. All of this is rather moot though – with or without Osteen’s ruling, the EPA report speaks for itself.

    The EPA report found a relative risk of SHS causing cancer of 1.19. But, in epidemiology, a relative risk of under 2.0 is generally considered insignificant. At less than 2.0 you can’t really responsibly determine whether the effect is due to some real-world phenomena, or if it’s due merely to inaccuracies inherent in the study. In epidemiology a relative risk of between 2.0 and 3.0 is considered somewhat iffy – a relative risk of over 3.0 is desirable to show a significant risk or link. Epidemiology is not an exact science, and there is always some measure of inaccuracy inherent in any study. This is why all epidemiological studys carry “margins of error”, or what’s known as a “confidence interval.”

    As a general rule, a confidence interval of 95% is standard. Anything less than that, and the findings begin to become suspect. The lower the confidence interval, the higher the suspicion. Every 10% drop in a confidence interval effectively quadruples the margin of error for the study.

    The problem for the EPA was that they actually announced their findings BEFORE they had even commenced the study. (something common among anti-tobacco crusaders – as in Heather Crowe’s handlers announcing to the public that she had cancer due to SHS before the lab results from her biopsy had even been completed… the labs results, to this day, have still never been made public by the way) The EPA had announced before any science was done that SHS caused 3,000 deaths a year. Of course, it was then imperative that any study they did would have to agree with this number, or the EPA would be forced to eat a very large amount of crow.

    Unfortunately, even with their demonstrably cherry-picked data, they were only able to come up with about 1,500 deaths… half of what they had already announced. So, what did the EPA do? They dropped the confidence interval of the study to 90%!!! This doubled the margin of error, and basically invented 1,500 more deaths out of thin air!

    So, the EPA declared SHS to be a class A carcinogen based on a meta-study with a 1.19 relative risk and 90% confidence interval. Hilarious when you consider that it is a matter of record that the EPA has, in the past, refused to declare other environmental hazards as class A carcinogens on relative risks factors as high as 3.0!!! The rules always seem to mysteriously get changed when it works in favour of anti-tobacco.

  45. “The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking…. Even at the greatest exposure levels….very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS.” -Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk,” CRS, Nov. 14, 1995 (statement made by the U.S. Congressional Scientific Review Committee regarding the EPA findings)

    I really dislike quotes that use … in them. To me this sounds like they are hiding something. I see this all the time when someone tries to quote some one where the direct quote doesn’t say exacly what they wanted it to say, so they leave out key words or sometimes whole paragraphs. So I looked up this quote to see if I could find the missing peices, and I got no where. I found several refernces to the exact quote that you provided and a few references that just ended the whole thing after “passive smoking”. The other interesting note is that all the references were on pro-smoking sites. I can find no reference to it on a non biased site anywhere. Not that I doubt the validity of the quote, I was just hoping to fill in the gaps to see what it was all about.

    Everything we currently “know” about the dangers of SHS is completely based on flawed, invalid, junk pseudo-science. It would seem that that much, at least, is inarguable.

    Well, no, we can’t agree on this. The thought of the link between SHS and cancer may be disputed, but it is a fact that SHS in general is not good for your health. (Causes all kinds of respiratory problems and what not) So I would have to say that SHS is indeed dangerous. It is the extent of this danger that is debatable.

  46. Some more information on the court ruling: (With references!!)
    http://www.tobaccocontrol.neu.edu/TCU/tcu03.1/Features/epa_nutshell.htm

  47. What a load of bunk.

    “Judge Osteen did not invalidate the EPA’s extensive findings regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA’s findings, thus, remain intact regarding secondhand smoke and its effects…”

    Osteen’s ruling rendered no specific judgement on the EPA’s findings on conditions other than lung cancer. However, he specifically found intentional deception and manipulation on the part of the EPA. This, by order of logic, renders their entire study meaningless. It can not be trusted. It’s basic reason – the EPA’s case isn’t all true, ipso facto, unless someone can debunk each and every point. It all remains unknown until the EPA can prove their case. They were shown to be intentionally fabricating their conclusions in their attempts to prove their case.

    “In his most shocking departure from normal principles of administrative law, Judge Osteen chose to review the basic science – the epidemiology, statistical analysis and scientific judgement – behind the EPA’s report, and substituted his “scientific” opinion for that of the EPA, its Science Advisory Board, the IAQC, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, the Surgeon General, and many major health organizations.”

    Bull. He reviewed sources and methods. Perfectly normal in a case dealing with such subject matter. No matter how badly the anti-smoking lobby wants it to be true – scientific consensus is not a higher court. Anti-tobacco is subject to the same laws of the land as the rest of us. The results of the EPA’s findings were going to (and did) effect public policy. Scientists don’t run the world – the laws of the people do.

    “Not surprisingly, Judge Osteen’s conclusions on the science seem to have been informed solely by the tobacco companies’ briefs.”

    Pure proclamation.

    “The EPA seems, however, to have had good reasons for ignoring the data that it did.”

    At the time the study was taking place, there were three major, on-going U.S. studies taking place. The EPA chose one to include and rejected the other two. The one they chose (The Fontham study) was the only one which showed a statistical link between SHS and cancer. The other two had findings counter to the EPA’s desired conclusion. The study the EPA chose was uncompleted at the time of the EPA’s meta-survey. Once it was completed, the researches refused to release their findings. They had to be sued for access to it. Turns out the Fontham study showed what the CRS described as “”a positive risk that was barely statistically significant.” The other two studies showed no risk at all.

    The EPA even chose to include studies that THE EPA ITSELF had previously deemed invalid!!!

    Does that sound like the EPA had “good reasons” for ignoring the data that it did?

    The EPA based their final analysis on 11 studies. Even taking into account all of the data that they chose to ignore, at a 95% confidence interval (the norm in epidemiology) their own analysis found NO increased risk. It is a matter of public record that the EPA lowered their CI, and increased their margin of error in order to obtain the numbers which they had announced before their reseach had begun to take place.

    Let me ask you a simple question: If you were the CEO of a research firm, and it came to your attention that one of your epidemiologists had doubled his margin of error in order to support his pre-announced conclusion, would you support him in his actions? If not, why do you support the EPA in theirs?

    “The EPA ignored 1) studies of childhood exposure to ETS on the theory that they relied upon distant memories and more limited lifetime exposure to ETS; 2) studies of workplace exposure to ETS because of potential confounders. The exclusion of these types of studies seems to make good common and scientific sense,”

    Wow, that was big of them! Especially considering the fact that according to the CRS, they accepted studies that “relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, OR THEIR SURROGATES, to determine ETS exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.”

    Why are the “distant memories of children” not good enough for them, but second-hand hearsay is? Could it possibly be because one study is unfriendly toward their a-priori bias, and the other isn’t??? Hmmm??? No! Couldn’t be that! The EPA is the epitome of scientific integrity!

    “Some of the studies excluded by the EPA were also arguably tainted by the influence of the tobacco industry.”

    Nothing worong with that. I’d reject those studies too. Notice, however, that they say nothing about the EPA’s inclusion of studies “tainted” by the influence of any body that might have an interest in siding with the EPA’s own pre-concieved conlusions? Did the EPA even check for that?

    “Statistical significance is the scientific standard that separates interesting results…”

    Nice! The next two paragraphs go on to openly admit the EPA’s a-priori bias, albeit in a way worded so the average lay-person would likely interpret as meaning that it’s a perfectly normal thing to do.

    What they are saying here, if you can see the fnords, is: “Ya, the EPA wasn’t very careful on purpose, but that’s perfectly fine, because we already knew that our findings were sound. If you already know something, you don’t have to be careful in further studies.”

    I’m sorry, but that’s just not how science works. Science is provisional. Past experiments mean nothing in the way of lending veracity to future experiements. You’re not allowed to cheat on an experiement just because you already “know” what further observation will bear out.

    And, this is hosted on an academic website! They ought to be damned well ashamed of themselves!

    “The State of California undertook a broad review of ETS and issued a Final Report in September 1997 that concluded “ETS exposure is causally associated with a number of health effects” including “developmental, respiratory, carcinogenic and cardiovascular effects. . . including fatal outcomes such as sudden infant death syndrome and heart disease mortality, as well as serious chronic diseases such as childhood asthma.”18 Among its frightening conclusions: Each year in the U.S., secondhand smoke causes up to 2,700 cases of sudden infant death syndrome, 62,000 deaths from heart disease, and 26,000 new cases of asthma in kids.”

    Hmmm… odd… since we now know, about as well as we know anything in medical science, that ETS absolutely does not have any causal relationship to asthma, the link between ETS and SIDS is a complete unknown, and the link to heart disease, even in smokers themselves, is tenuous at best. Interesting. But, it’s ok for papers just as these to keep doing their research by proclomation, because, after all, it’s for our own good.

    “The results of the 1994 Fontham study of women in two California and three Southern cities – the largest case-control study on the subject ever conducted – vindicates the EPA’s 1992 conclusions.”

    Hmmm… is that the same study that the EPA (for purely noble reasons, I’m sure) chose to include in their analysis, while exluding the other two that didn’t “vindicate” their conclusions? The same one that the researchers had to be sued before they’d release their findings???

    Seriously… are you not embarresed by this?

    You should read the CRS report. It’s quite interesting. If you do, you’ll find that the CRS identified a total of thirty studies that the EPA considered in their meta-analysis. I’d then turn your attention to page 23, where the CRS finds that out of the thirty studies, only five found a significant risk, twenty-four found no risk, and one even showed a protective effect. …huh??? From this the EPA arrives at numbers which suggest significant risk??? How can this be??? It couldn’t be that they fudged the numbers could it? You know how they did that? THEY INCREASED THE MARGIN OF ERROR UNTIL THE NUMBERS SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED THEM TO SHOW! That much is documented fact, and no quantity or manner of rationalization on the part of anti-tobacco Nazis changes that.

    It is an absolute, undeniable, unarguable fact that if you apply a .5 significance level and 95% CI to the EPA’s findings, you come up with a relative risk factor of 1. Do you know what that means? It means that if you would expect to see 100 cases lung cancer in an SHS free environment, once you introduce SHS, you still see 100 cases of lung cancer – no more, no less.

    THAT IS WHAT THE EPA FOUND IN THEIR STUDY!

    They just took an extra step of doubling their margin of error, so that the relative risk jumped to 1.19 (anything under 2.0 is usually considered insignificant) So, the EPA is saying: no ETS = 100 cases of cancer. Introduce ETS and you see 119 cases of lung cancer. Clearly there is a link… and, oh, by the way, these numbers may be off by 19 or so either way. …except, the anti-tobacco fascists never mention that last part.

    And, what was their justification for this, as plainly reiterated in that paper that YOU posted???

    “It’s ok to cheat because we already knew what the outcome was going to be anyway.”

    And that, I’m sorry to say, is typical anti-smoker “scientific” thinking.

    Imagine if physicists, or astronomers, or what have you, conducted science in the same way? “Well, we already KNOW that the Sun revolves around the Earth, so we’re allowed to fudge some numbers in our observations here and there.”

    That’s called a-priori bias, and it has no place in any science other than tobacco control.

  48. Wow.
    No, I’m not at all embarrassed by any of it. The way I see it, if the world’s major health organizations say ETS and SHS are bad for you; the governments of the world say its bad for you; every smoker I talk to agrees their health has been adversely affected by smoking; and I know how bad I feel for a few days after hanging out in a smoky bar or house, then all that is good enough evidence for me.

    I lost my uncle to throat and mouth cancer (he didn’t smoke a day in his life, but he lived with his mother until she died in her mid 70′s who did smoke). How did she die? Pneumonia took hold of her and collapsed her lungs. They wouldn’t inflate because there was too much nicotine build up in them – not enough room to sustain enough oxygen. She most likely had cancerous tumors too, but they didn’t bother to check as she was already dead, so what’s the point…

    A co-worker of mine is 16. She just started (a few months ago) casually smoking (about one a week) those new cigarette/cigar things (can’t remember what they are called). Before she started smoking she did a beep test in her gym class. She just did another test the other day and her time was longer by over a minute, plus she knew she was short of breath and didn’t have the same energy level she had at the beginning of the year.

    We can quote studies and links back and forth until the cows come home, but I choose to believe real life studies that I personally have been involved in. If you don’t want to believe the science world, that’s your call, but seeing as how the people with the degrees find evidence of the effects of smoking that correlate with what I see in the real world, then I’m going to go with that.
    If you don’t see any adverse affects as a result of smoking and you find science papers that state smoking is not bad for you, then enjoy it. That brings me to a comment you made about how the EPA threw out the studies that contradicted what they wanted to say. Isn’t that the same thing you do? You praise the studies that show positive heatlh effects or no ill effects, but condemn the ones that do not fit your pre-conceived idea. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts you didn’t start smoking because you heard they were good for you. You started because other people that you knew were smoking, people you respected and trusted, like parents or friends. It wasn’t until after you started smoking that you started hearing warnings to quit. So then you looked for any evidence to either backup your position, or attempt to discredit the opposition (which by the way, according to logic, discrediting the studies that say its bad for you, doesn’t automatically mean that it is good for you or even non-effective. There are way too many studies out there for you to discredit all of them….)

    But please, stop calling myself and fellow anti-smokers Nazis. It is uncalled for to be so rude and inconsiderate. Name calling is not the way to win an argument; all it does is show your anger and rage and therefore makes you come off as being a ‘holier-than-thou’ type of person. I can’t speak for all anti-smokers, but personally, I do this to help protect the health of everyone, not to try and control or conform people.

  49. I just saw this interesting tidbit on MSN….

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23075001/?GT1=10856

    Aparently a teenager with Asthma went to work in a smokey bar. 15 minutes into her shift she collapsed on the floor and died. The autopsy declared it as death by acute asthma attack brought on by SHS. Sure she wasn’t managing her asthma properly, but still, an otherwise healthy teenager shouldn’t have died that easily or that quickly, even with asthma.

    Just FYI.

  50. And?

    She was an asthmatic! SHS didn’t cause her condition. It irritated her condition to the point where it brought on an attack. (most likely anyway… I’m unsure as to how they could determine with certainty how it was SHS that was the catalyst. I believe it’s a decent guess that it very likely had something to do with it, but anything approaching certainty is always difficult in such cases. Ruling out all exposure to all known irritants to asthma is practically impossible.) Asthmatics suffer from many, many things that irritate their condition. They often even die from acute attacks in which a catalyst for the attack can not be determined – it happened to an acquaintance of mine. Are we going to ban anything and everything that has been known to irritate asthmatic conditions? How about other medical conditions? I hope not. Even LAUGHING has been shown to be one of the most common catalysts for asthmatic attacks.

    It’s very simple: If you’ve got a potentially serious condition, it’s up to you to take care of yourself.

    If you’re blind, then you shouldn’t be driving a car, or skiing, or doing any number of other things that would be risky for a person with your condition. Likewise, if you’ve got a potentially serious asthmatic condition, you should be taking care not to engage in activity that is risky for you. DON’T GO TO SMOKEY PLACES! Problem solved – risk averted!

    But, this case is a freak occurrence anyway. It doesn’t pass the smell test. The reporting of it, in the manner that it is being reported, serves to create hysteria. Were you not alive in the 70s? If you were, I’m sure you must remember going to movie theatres and straining to see the screen through a thick haze of blue smoke, or any indoor sporting event, or just about any other public place. If asthma deaths due to SHS is such a clear and present life threating risk, why weren’t asthmatics dropping like flies back then? It makes no sense.

    If SHS truly is the foul demon it is made out to be, we’d all have long since been appalled at all the death we each personally were witnessing all around us. We would have figured out the danger a long time ago, and nobody would be smoking now. But, we’ve never seen this death. Every so often we’re told of some freak occurrence, somewhere in the world, such as this one, and it’s presented to us in a way that makes it seem as though, even though we can’t see it taking place, it’s a horrendous pandemic. And, the mindless sheep – being what they are – just lap it up and log it in their brains as revealed truth. In 700 plus years of documented smoking history, nobody had witnessed enough horrific death and destruction to clue them in to the real dangers… but within the last few decades, we start seeing some epidemiology here and there that says “Even though you can’t see it happening, trust us! People are dieing en masse!!!” And everyone goes “Baaaaah! Baaaah! I do not question the enlightened ones! Baaaah!”

    Does it not give you pause to think that in the last 20 years asthma rates have doubled, while public exposure to SHS has plummeted?
    http://www.data-yard.net/10a1/epa-asthma.htm

    Or, even better… that children of parents who smoke are at LESS RISK of developing asthma???
    http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm
    http://www.data-yard.net/10/asthkid1.htm

    Coming into contact with a house-hold pet, for instance, has been shown to be much more of an irritant than SHS:
    http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/montreal.htm

    If anti-smokers are so concerned with the health of asthmatics, where are their rallying cries for the banning of puppys?

    I’ll give you a hint – they’re not concerned with health. They just really don’t like cigarette smoke, and they’re not above using people’s tragic deaths to play on the emotions of the public in order to disingenuously further their own agenda.

  51. I’m not denying anything to do with her Asthma condition. Yes I will agree that she didn’t die due to SHS, she died as a direct result of her Asthma. But if smoking was banned in that bar then she would still be alive today. We can’t eliminate every possible irritant for every possible condition, but we can eliminate one irritant that affects many conditions. Isn’t that at least a good place to start?
    And to say that she shouldn’t engage in activities like going to the smoky bar, that may be easier said that done. The bar was her place of work. Sometimes people can’t find good work that pays well all the time, so a bar position works well. Can you blame someone for wanting to make enough money to enjoy life?
    [blockquote]
    If SHS truly is the foul demon it is made out to be, we’d all have long since been appalled at all the death we each personally were witnessing all around us. We would have figured out the danger a long time ago, and nobody would be smoking now. But, we’ve never seen this death.
    [/blockquote]

    The reason why people are still smoking is two fold. Every one who smokes is addicted to it. The manufactures purposely put addictive substances in the tobacco products to make sure people don’t quit. The other reason is that it is a large revenue for the governments, so they are not going to just outlaw them, because then the black market will take hold of the distribution, and the government will loose out and still be faced with the rising health care costs.
    No amount of information can ever convince an addict that there is a problem with the product they enjoy (this includes gambling, alcohol, pop, anything people get hooked on). It’s kind of like the phrase Love is Blind. If you are enjoying it, then you don’t care to see or believe that anything bad could become of it.

    The links you provided above talk about the risk of developing asthma as it relates to SHS. I never said it causes asthma anyway, so none of those links give me pause. It doesn’t affect my position or the actual reason for this page.

    I did want to put forth a thought to you though on a slightly unrelated issue.
    You are always harping on any study that has funding partners that may be biased towards getting people to (try) to quit. But yet you get a lot of information that you claim to be the gospel truth from sites such as forces.org. Forces.org is wholly funded by donations from John Q Public. I’m sure that most of these people donating money are smokers, looking for proof that their habit is healthy for them. Doesn’t this make their studies just as invalid and biased as you claim the ones from CDC, WHO and the like are?
    I haven’t had time to look yet, but does the Forces.org have any kind of demographic study of their donors to see what kind of percentage are smokers?

  52. But if smoking was banned in that bar then she would still be alive today.

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    We can’t eliminate every possible irritant for every possible condition, but we can eliminate one irritant that affects many conditions. Isn’t that at least a good place to start?

    No. It’s not a good place to start. That’s called a “slippery slope.” And, that’s exactly the problem with it – it’s only a start. Some time after smoking has been forcefully eliminated, they will come to take away freedoms that you enjoy, and they’ll do it under the plea that it’s for the good of someone’s well-being. No matter how tenuous the link between your freedom and the well-being of whoever it is done for the sake of is. And, if and when they do come to take your freedoms, you can bank on the fact that I’ll be right there fighting beside you – whether those freedoms are something I value or not… and, I’m going to make you feel like the biggest shit in the world for helping them take mine away from me.

    But, If you want to start somewhere for the sake of asthmatics, why not start with the big things? Why not put a ban on combustion powered automobiles? Outdoor air pollutants cause more asthma attacks than SHS does. Why not ban the cooking of food in public places like restaurants? Cooking food releases almost all of the same particulates into the atmosphere that tobacco smoke does, plus many that aren’t in tobacco smoke, only at a much, much higher rate of cfm. Surely, your local steak house must be hell on any asthmatic wait-staff that works there?

    Hell, why stop at tobacco smoke? Many people experience anaphylactic reactions to all sorts of things like cleaning products, colognes and perfumes etc. Lets ban all of that stuff too! Electromagnetic radiation causes cancer. Lets ban radios, T.V.s, cell-phones while we’re at it. In fact, anything electrical requiring AC current requires massively air-polluting electric generating stations in order to run. Lets ban all electrical equipment period! And on, and on, and on. Where do you want it to stop, and why?

    I bet I can guess where you’d want it to stop: Right when it began to encroach on something that would inconvenience you were it to be banned.

    And to say that she shouldn’t engage in activities like going to the smoky bar, that may be easier said that done. The bar was her place of work. Sometimes people can’t find good work that pays well all the time, so a bar position works well. Can you blame someone for wanting to make enough money to enjoy life?

    That’s patently absurd. By that logic, if I experienced life threatening anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, I should be able to get a job at a honey farm and then demand they get rid of all their bees? If I had such a condition, I’d look for work elsewhere. I wasn’t born with a God given right to be able to work at any job that I pleased. Some jobs just aren’t for me. If I was blind, I wouldn’t look for work as a pilot. If I had a chemical sensitivity I would look for work in a perfume factory. And, if I was asthmatic, I wouldn’t look for work in a smoky bar. The notion is downright ludicrous.

    The reason why people are still smoking is two fold. Every one who smokes is addicted to it.

    Patently false. I have no doubt the vast majority are addicted. But, not everyone. I know people who smoke and aren’t addicted.

    The manufactures purposely put addictive substances in the tobacco products to make sure people don’t quit. The other reason is that it is a large revenue for the governments, so they are not going to just outlaw them, because then the black market will take hold of the distribution, and the government will loose out and still be faced with the rising health care costs.

    So…. your contention then is that if drinking anti-freeze was as addictive as nicotine, a fifth of the world’s population would be drinking anti-freeze? Absurd. Most people aren’t as stupid as you seem to think. They would see people dieing from anti-freeze poisoning, and they’d say “I aint touching that stuff!” If the danger is obvious enough, most people wont allow themselves the chance to become addicted. That’s why habitual users of dangerous illicit narcotics that are far, far more addictive than tobacco are so rare. How many smokers have you known in your life? How many heroin addicts have you known? By your logic, more than a fifth of the world’s population would logically have to be heroin users.

    And, please don’t debase yourself by bringing out the old anti-smoking propaganda BS about nicotine being the most addictive substance known and all that. It’s a spit in the face to people like me who’ve had very close friends that have battled addictions to REAL addictive substances, like heroin. If you think that’s true then you’re hopelessly lost, and I challenge you to spend a weekend with a long-time smoker that has just given up smoking, and a weekend with a long-time heroin junkie that has just kicked the habit. I’ve done both. Believe me – anyone who truly believes that nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man ought to be taken out in to a field and shot – we don’t need that kind of stupid in the gene pool.

    No amount of information can ever convince an addict that there is a problem with the product they enjoy (this includes gambling, alcohol, pop, anything people get hooked on). It’s kind of like the phrase Love is Blind. If you are enjoying it, then you don’t care to see or believe that anything bad could become of it.

    False. I’m a smoker. So, according to you, I must necessarily then be addicted, no? I also happen to enjoy smoking immensely. So, how come I’m perfectly aware that much bad could become of it? Looks like I’m a living contradiction to your understanding.

    The links you provided above talk about the risk of developing asthma as it relates to SHS. I never said it causes asthma anyway, so none of those links give me pause. It doesn’t affect my position or the actual reason for this page.

    One of them is a study that shows that exposure to pets is more of an irritant to asthmatic conditions than SHS. Another two corroborating studies showed that SHS may have a protective effect in guarding against the development of asthma. While admittedly not proof of anything, it is counterintuitive to think that SHS might guard against the development of asthma while at the same time acting as a major irritant in those who already have the disease.

    I did want to put forth a thought to you though on a slightly unrelated issue.
    You are always harping on any study that has funding partners that may be biased towards getting people to (try) to quit. But yet you get a lot of information that you claim to be the gospel truth from sites such as forces.org. Forces.org is wholly funded by donations from John Q Public. I’m sure that most of these people donating money are smokers, looking for proof that their habit is healthy for them. Doesn’t this make their studies just as invalid and biased as you claim the ones from CDC, WHO and the like are?
    I haven’t had time to look yet, but does the Forces.org have any kind of demographic study of their donors to see what kind of percentage are smokers?

    I’m not sure if they do or not. I believe at least they did at one time. I think I remember seeing something like that a while back. But, I’m not sure it matters. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re correct in your assumption regarding who donates. But, what does it matter? What kind of straw-man is this? Forces.Org has nothing to do with the execution of the studies. Forces is an advocacy group, they do no science themselves, nor have any hand in any science done. They merely provide links to other people’s already published studies so that they’re easy to locate. The Forces website is just a repository for information relating to the issue. The studies themselves are independent studies. The citations are all there for you to look into for yourself.

    Don’t worry, Forces doesn’t post studies that were done by anyone with any links to the tobacco industry. They are constantly being erroneously accused of being a big-tobacco front by the desperate antis. (that’s Friedman’s second tactic- “If you can’t attack the argument, attack the person making the argument – it’s easier”) As such, they go the extra mile to make sure that those accusations hold no water. They only reference studies from independent sources. If they didn’t the antis would be all over them, yelling and screaming about how nothing they ever said could ever be trusted.

    Granted, you’ll never see a study from an independent source that finds smoking in an unfavourable light on the Forces page, but that doesn’t call into question the integrity of the studies that are published on there. So, I really don’t see your point.

    My problem is with the people obtaining the data – if they have an interest in the data coming down on one side or the other, then the data they obtain is useless. It’s not necessarily wrong, but it can’t be trusted. We can’t know if it’s wrong or not. It’s unreliable information. Such is the nature of epidemiology. I wouldn’t trust any study done by anyone that held interest in the tobacco industry that found tobacco to be good, would you? And, I wouldn’t trust any study done by anyone who held interest in the smoking cessation industry that found that tobacco is bad, would you?

    You can give me a link to a study hosted on Ithinkallsmokersshoulddieahorribledeath.com and that’s fine – IF the study itself was conducted free of any apparent operational bias. But, if the study that you reference was conducted by The Royal Institute To Abolish Tobacco Forever And Ever, then your study is worthless… ya dig?

  53. I’m really exhausted right now so I will have to re-read this again, but before I turn in, I did want to ask you to clarify a few things.
    You said that you would believe a study as long as it wasn’t done by one side of the argument or the other. But the studies done by places like the CDC and the WHO are not always biased until they determine the results (from the way I see it) But you see it as they already have the result, then they try to make data proove it. By this reasoning, any study that is ever done that shows a possible link will most likely result in the conducters of the study beliving that there is a problem. Then you will belive that they are biased and you will throw out their study as being meaningless. Is this a fair assumption or did I miss something?
    You even said it yourself that “My problem is with the people obtaining the data – if they have an interest in the data coming down on one side or the other, then the data they obtain is useless” Wouldn’t this, by your definition,
    mean that Forces.org’s information gathered is useless too?

    And I don’t remember saying that nicotine was the most addictive substance on earth. I know its not, so if I did say that, I apologize and admit I was in error. It is however adictive, and it is manufactured that way on purpose. So is Heroin, Cocain, Ice, what ever else might be out there. They are all addictive. And on purpose.
    If you smoke, then yes you are addicted. I don’t care if you believe that or not, but you are. You may have a strong will power and might be able to quit easily, but it doesn’t mean that you are not addicted. I do know someone going through Meth withdrawl and yes, it is much more nasty than smoker withdrawl. I agree and admit there are much more addictive substances. But everyone is affected by things differently. How long can you go without a cigarette before you feel you really need one? Have you ever tried? If not, could you humor me? See if you can go two days without a drag. I’m not trying to get you to quit, just proving that you are indeed addicted. If you feel fine during the two days (this includes no headaches, no shakes, no “I can’t stand the taste of food without a smoke” kinda comments) than I will admit defeat and contend that you are the first smoker I have met who is not actually addicted. This expirement doesn’t count if you tried it like 10 years ago and had no problems. This needs to be recent as a lot of other factors could affect the results that you might not remember from that long ago.

  54. You said that you would believe a study as long as it wasn’t done by one side of the argument or the other.

    No. I don’t “believe” any study. That’s not the purpose of epidemiology… even though it has been served to the public that way by the anti-smoking lobby, because all they have is epidemiology. The best epidemiology in the world is still a very poor, poor way of determining fact. It was never meant to serve science as being anything more than a guide to serve future study of any subject. Unless we have hard, empirical observation and experimentation, we can’t know fact with any reasonable degree of certainty. And, that’s not what epidemiology is. The world knew this before the anti-smoking lobby came along.

    Epidemiology is akin to “testing the waters.” It serves a purpose of letting us know if there might possibly be something to an idea or not – whether or not an idea merits further exploration. It can never determine fact. For that, you need empirical experimentation. You need to study and experiment with the actual mechanics of cause and effect relationships.

    The reason this debate is still able to take place after 50+ years of exhaustive, heated exchange, is because all we have really is epidemiology. If there was any hard science, there’d be no debate. The conclusions would be self-evident – like all good science. But, no self-evident conclusions currently exist. Because, all the anti-smoking lobby has is epidemiology, and the best epidemiology is always at least somewhat dubious. That’s why there’s always been such a push from the anti-smoking establishment to convince the public that epidemiology is the last word in scientific reason – because that’s all they have… even though most of their epidemiology just doesn’t gel with real world observation.

    And, any epidemiology carried out by anyone with a vested interest in having the data come to a certain conclusion is useless. In such a case there’s no way to rule out bias affecting the outcome of the numbers. It just can’t be done to any reasonable degree of certainty. So, if you’re interested in “truth” the responsible thing to do is to entirely disregard any suspect epidemiology on the face of it. That’s the only way to eliminate the risk that the conclusions of the epidemiology might be unfounded.

    If a tobacco company pays for a study to be done, and the study concludes that smoking is really, really, beneficial – don’t believe it! Disregard the study. You can’t know if bias has had an effect on the outcome of the study or not. The people conducting the study were paid by the tobacco company. They are feeding their families with money that was given to them by a tobacco company in order to conduct a study. How many times in the future do you think that a tobacco company will give them money again to conduct more studies if their first study finds that smoking is horrendously dangerous? Answer: Never.

    The fudging of the numbers doesn’t even have to be on purpose. It’s well known that experimenters can affect the results of a scientific experiment to reflect their own bias on a purely subconscious level. That’s why good science always conducts “double blind” and “triple blind” experimentation – to ensure that the experimenter is not, even subconsciously, altering the outcome of the experiment. It’s a well established fact that if you want an experiment to find something, there’s a very real danger that you will work to make sure that it does find it – even if you don’t know you’re doing it. That’s the whole reason for “blind” experimentation.

    And, unfortunately, the very nature of epidemiology is such that’s it’s very, very susceptible to operational bias. Just because of how epidemiology works, it’s very easy to fudge the numbers, and it can be very difficult to see evidence of it being done if it has been done. It’s also notoriously difficult in epidemiology to effectivley implement such measures as double blind methodology.

    But the studies done by places like the CDC and the WHO are not always biased until they determine the results (from the way I see it) But you see it as they already have the result, then they try to make data proove it. By this reasoning, any study that is ever done that shows a possible link will most likely result in the conducters of the study beliving that there is a problem. Then you will belive that they are biased and you will throw out their study as being meaningless. Is this a fair assumption or did I miss something?

    You missed a lot. Well, in a way you’re right. All epidemiology is suspect on some level. It’s just not a good way of determining fact. But, there’s epidemiology and then there’s useless epidemiology.

    Studies conducted by the CDC and the WHO must be thrown out because these organizations have publicly displayed strong bias in the past. Before they begin any new study, we already know what they want the study to find, and we know what they want the study to not find. And, it’s not simply due to their past findings. It’s because they’ve made statements, or have been caught taking part in deception, etc.

    The CDC and the WHO (especially the WHO) have proven, through their words and actions, that they desperately want to portray tobacco in a bad light. The WHO has been caught, red-handed, suppressing data that didn’t compliment their pre-conceived notions about tobacco use. They’ve been caught lying, cheating, and they have declared publicly that one of their main stated missions is to wipe out tobacco use globally. They are also funded and supported heavily by the pharmaceutical industry – an industry that makes more and more money the more people become frightened of tobacco. You’d have to be an idiot to trust anything they said regarding the dangers of tobacco – just like you’d have to be an idiot to trust anything a tobacco company said about tobacco being good or benign. Why? Because the tobacco industry has been caught lying, cheating, suppressing data, and they make more and more money the more people believe that tobacco is harmless. It’s a two way street.

    The CDC also has strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. And, they’ve been caught practising outright deception regarding the issue. These are the SAMMEC people, remember.

    If you want to quote me a study, quote me one from an independent university or something. Someone who hasn’t received any grants or support to conduct the study from any party that has a vested interest in portraying tobacco in a bad light. That’s all that’s required. They exist. But, I think you’ll be disappointed to find that it’s difficult to locate any of those “smoking gun,” “tobacco is the devil incarnate” kind of studies that seem to so often come out of places like the WHO, CDC, EPA, etc.

    The WHO and the CDC aren’t suspect because they’ve found a certain conclusion in the past. It’s because they stand to gain if a certain conclusion is shown. Or, because they are operating with a known, evident bias.

    If this were a science like, say, axiomatic mathematics, it would be different. Because, the conclusions of such sciences are self-evident. If a mathematician says to you 2 plus 2 equals 4, it doesn’t matter what bias he might have – the conclusion is self-evident. You can get 2 apples, place them next to 2 other apples and count them all up. Epidemiology doesn’t work that way. There is all manner of inherent confounder that may or may not be in play regarding any epidemiological set that renders the set open to a great deal of interpretation when formulating a conclusion from that set. Because this sort of fuzziness is always an inherent factor within epidemiology, there’s always room for data and outcome to be fudged – whether knowingly, or unknowingly. There’s no way to completely and assuredly eliminate it. Therefore, if a conductor displays the potential for significant bias, the only safe and responsible thing to do is to say “That study can not be safley used in drawing a conclusion. It must be disregarded.”

    You even said it yourself that “My problem is with the people obtaining the data – if they have an interest in the data coming down on one side or the other, then the data they obtain is useless” Wouldn’t this, by your definition,
    mean that Forces.org’s information gathered is useless too?

    No. Forces doesn’t conduct the studies. They’re merely one source for dissemination. They have nothing to do with obtaining the data. They can’t fudge the numbers. They can, and do, select which studies to publicise on their website. But, that doesn’t affect me any. Contrary studies are still available to me. I can still get both sides of the story, I just have to go to more places than Forces.org to get it. If Forces conducted a study, or paid a third party to conduct a study, then yes, I’d say it was a useless study. But, they haven’t, as of yet, ever done that. They merely disseminate studies done by independent groups that have no affiliation with Forces. They’re also vigilant in making sure that any study they do disseminate was conducted free, in even the most tenuous of ways, from any influence from any pro-tobacco group.

    As I explained before, they are constantly being erroneously accused by the anti-smoking lobby of being a front for big-tobacco. They have to be extra careful that the anti-smoking lobby can never get its hands on anything solid that would lend weight to that accusation. So, the studies they select to carry are researched diligently to make sure there is no reason to suspect influence from any pro-smoking interests.

    I feel for them. I’m often accused of the same thing. The anti-smoking lobby wants you to believe that anyone who would dare to question their divinley revealed, infallible truth, MUST be working for a tobacco company. They seem to brainwashed into thinking this way. They’re to be pitied more than scorned I suppose.

    And I don’t remember saying that nicotine was the most addictive substance on earth. I know its not, so if I did say that, I apologize and admit I was in error.

    You didn’t say that. And, I didn’t say that you did. I merely warned against saying it, if that’s what was in your mind to say – as it’s a very common statement from anti-smokers. And, it’s completely absurd.

    Anti-smokers seem to commonly believe that since nicotine is the second most wide-spread physically addictive substance, that alone proves beyond doubt that it must carry the highest level of addictivness. As if the level of addictiveness of a substance is the only criteria that determines commonality of use. That gives you a glimpse into the simple workings of the common anti-smoker’s brain. No wonder they pose such problems to the reasonable and rational among us.

    It is however adictive, and it is manufactured that way on purpose. So is Heroin, Cocain, Ice, what ever else might be out there. They are all addictive. And on purpose.

    Of course it is… so is T.V., video games, sweets, and countless other things.

    If you smoke, then yes you are addicted.

    That’s just not true. It’s too much of an absolute statement. I’d agree with “If you smoke, then it’s highly likely that you’re addicted.” But, I personally know regular, long-time smokers who just aren’t addicted. Some people, and they’re admittedly rare, just don’t seem to possess the genetic make-up to become physically addicted to nicotine. I know people who can pick up the habit and put it down at will with absolutely no expenditure of any real effort on their part. Those people are just not addicted.

    I don’t care if you believe that or not, but you are. You may have a strong will power and might be able to quit easily, but it doesn’t mean that you are not addicted.

    I know I’m addicted. I’m addicted to quite a few things – so are you.

    How long can you go without a cigarette before you feel you really need one? Have you ever tried?

    Yes, I’ve tried. There is quite often times when I have to go without smoking for long stretches. After about 15 years of smoking a pack a day, I quit for a year. That was the longest stretch.

    Usually, I can go about two to three hours before I start feeling a significant craving.

    If not, could you humor me? See if you can go two days without a drag.

    Oh, I can. I’ve done two days a number of times. The last time being fairly recently. I’d rather not do that. It’s much more enjoyable for me not to. And, no, it’s not easy for me to do that, but, it’s not like it’s an impossible chore or anything.

    I’m not trying to get you to quit, just proving that you are indeed addicted.

    I know I’m addicted. I fail to see the significance. I’m addicted to lots of things – so are you. And, ultimately, I choose to be addicted.

    If you feel fine during the two days (this includes no headaches, no shakes, no “I can’t stand the taste of food without a smoke” kinda comments)

    I don’t get any sort of major headaches from not smoking.. perhaps some very minor ones. I don’t get shakes at all. Even when I quit for a year I noticed no change in the taste of food at any time. I do get highly irritable. I do lose the ability to focus my attentions somewhat, as the want of a cigarette becomes very distracting. I do get a sort of mild soreness in my muscles throughout my body – mostly in the back of my neck for some reason. I do get a feeling of a sort of general malaise, like feeling run-down, or tired – a sort of feeling as if I haven’t gotten enough sleep.

    But, by FAR the most difficult aspect of not smoking, for me, is the psychological factor – just the feeling of really wanting to experience the pleasure of enjoying a smoke, and not doing it. If I only had the physical stuff to deal with, quitting at any time, for me, if I wanted to quit, would be downright easy as pie.

    than I will admit defeat and contend that you are the first smoker I have met who is not actually addicted.

    I’m not that guy. I’m addicted – there’s no doubt about it. No fear of defeat here. I just fail to see the significance of it.

    I think, like many anti-smokers, you may be equating all addiction. I.e. – Addiction = bad. Unfortunately, life just isn’t that simple. It’s not a question of whether or not you’re addicted to something, it’s a question of the detriment of that addiction.

    I’m addicted to my wife. I love being addicted to her. I’m glad I’m addicted to her. It brings me nothing but reward and benefit. I’d hate to be addicted to morphine however, the detriment it would bring would be too great.

    For me, my addiction to cigarettes brings with it both reward, some minor detriment, and the risk of greater detriment. The reward I enjoy and do not want to lose. The current detriment is well within reason, and the risk of greater detriment I have determined to be an acceptable risk.

    It’s how any rational person approaches any activity. If you enjoy skiing for example, you weigh these things as well.

    A) Skiing brings reward: Enjoyment of the sport.
    B) It brings detriment: You have to incur financial expenses, for one, that could be used some place else.
    C) It brings risk of greater detriment: You could get seriously hurt – perhaps even die.

    The rational person looks at all those things and makes a decision.

    A) Is the reward desirable enough that I would be comfortable absorbing (B) and risking (C)? If yes, then I ski. If no, then I don’t.
    B) Can I afford to spend the money needed to participate in skiing?
    C) Are the odds that I will get hurt or die acceptable to me? Is the risk too great? Or, are the odds remote enough?

    You can become addicted to skiing, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, most enthusiastic skiers I know are addicted. If you become addicted to the point where it’s a real detriment, then it’s a bad thing. If you’re spending your children’s college fund in order to finance ski trips and equipment, then you’ve got a problem. If the expense is well within your means, and are fine with accepting the inherent risks associated with it, then there’s no problem.

    An addiction is only bad if it’s significantly damaging to yourself or others. This is where we diverge. You believe that smoking is horrendously damaging in absolute terms. I believe that your belief is based mostly on hysteria and irrationality and that real world observation bears out the fact that it’s not, and the risks are well within the limits of personal acceptability.

    Only, whether you accept it or not, you’re part of a movement that thinks that, because I don’t agree with your beliefs, I must then be incapable of making this decision, and so measures must be brought forth to force me to lose the ability to make that decision for myself. And, I devote a good portion of my life fighting such authoritarian philosophies in all of its many forms.

    It’s exactly like the days of the inquisition. You know? When Christians thought that anyone who didn’t believe what they believed must be forced to change. If someone wasn’t a Christian, then they MUST be being deceived by the Devil… because if they weren’t, they’d obviously be Christian! Because of this deception, the non-Christians just don’t know what’s good for them. It’s the Devil talking, not them! The Devil rules their lives and clouds their judgement. Simple logic, huh? So, it’s fine to mercilessly beat them into submission until they see the error of their ways, free themselves of the bonds of Satan, and convert to Christianity. After all, it was for their own good – they needed to become healthy of spirit! They’d be better off if they were free of the Devil’s influence. Their lives would improve. The inquisition knew that better than the ones who were being decieved by Satan!

    Same deal. Anti-smokers think that unrepentant smokers MUST be being deceived by the Devil (nicotine,) Otherwise, they’d obviously know the error of their ways and come around to the anti-smoker’s way of thinking. Smokers don’t know what’s good for them, because the Devil (nicotine) rules their lives and clouds their judgement. So, it’s ok to beat smokers into submission until they free themselves of the bonds of their addiction and convert. Because, after all, it’s for their own good. Smokers need to become healthy. They’d be better off if they were free of the Devil’s influence. Their lives would improve. Anti-smokers know that better than smokers do!

  55. That really sucks. I posted another nice message but it didn’t seem to take. Thats the second time this has happened. Do you have something put into effect that will not allow certain posts from non-site admins? Like a length restriction, or maybe a timeout period? Please let me know what I have done wrong (with my posting) so I can avoid this in the future…. This time I didn’t save it first, so I have no way of reproducing what I typed :(

    One note I did make though, which is important to me, but completely off topic was this:
    The inquisition was run by the Roman Catholic Church. Not by Christians. It is a mistake that a lot of people make. Yes, Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic. The RC’s persecuted Jews, non-believers, and other Christian groups alike. Try not to confuse the two.

  56. The other main point I made was that you confused different types of addictions – probably on purpose. You equated physical addiction with chemical addiction.
    You may be addicted to your wife. You love spending time with her and you love the way she makes you feel, but this is purely a euphoric experience brought on by naturally occurring chemicals being released in your brain like serotonin and what not. Oh, and a little thing called Love 

    But I am talking about chemical addiction where the substance tricks your body into believing it can’t live without it. Nicotine, narcotics and prescription drugs all work like this. Your body doesn’t need nicotine, but the drug makes your body think it needs it. This is why you become addicted. Tobacco products do this on purpose as does all drugs. This is the same reason why CocaCola put cocaine in their soft drink in the beginning. They new it was addictive; they just didn’t know how bad of a drug it really was at first. My statement of ‘If you smoke, you are addicted’ was very absolute, but that same statement is exactly what big tobacco wants to hear. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking it is true.

    I had a lot more but it was lost, and I am too tired to try and recall it all right now….

  57. I’m sorry, but I’m really strapped for time at the moment, and can’t respond to your posts for the time being. I’ll get to them as soon as I can.

    But, I thought I should quickly explain…

    Posts that don’t show up likely aren’t lost. Posts that contain more than one URL in the body of the post are held in a moderation que for manual approval. This is an anti-spam measure, as I get in the neighbourhood of 50 to 100 comments per day on this blog from spam-bots. The vast majority of these spam comments contain a line something like “I like this article. Good work!” followed by multiple URLs directing people to various money-making scam websites. So, when the system sees URLs in the post, it holds them in a que where they wait for me to determine whether they are legitimate comments or not. This saves me from having to weed through all of the posts going back over 4 years and manually deleting 50 to 100 junk comments every day.

    So, if your post doesn’t show up when you submit it, it’s probably just sitting in the blog admin area, waiting for me to approve it. And, it will show up once I get the time to review it.

  58. Upon further review, it appears that your comment has been lost. I’ve just checked the moderation que, and it’s empty. I don’t know why that happened, I’m sorry. I seem to remember that you complained once before about a comment you had posted not showing up right away, and at that time it was due to the fact that the system had held it for review. So, I assumed that the same had taken place once again.

  59. Upon further review, it appears that your comment has been lost. I’ve just checked the moderation que, and it’s empty. I don’t know why that happened, I’m sorry. I seem to remember that you complained once before about a comment you had posted not showing up right away, and at that time it was due to the fact that the system had held it for review. So, I assumed that the same had taken place once again.

    Sure, Sure… that’s just what big tobacco wants me to believe – you guys just don’t want the truth to get out… :-) (Kidding)
    The message did contain a couple of links at the beginning, so that is most likely what happened.

    Epidemiology doesn’t work that way. There is all manner of inherent confounder that may or may not be in play regarding any epidemiological set that renders the set open to a great deal of interpretation when formulating a conclusion from that set. Because this sort of fuzziness is always an inherent factor within epidemiology, there’s always room for data and outcome to be fudged – whether knowingly, or unknowingly. There’s no way to completely and assuredly eliminate it.

    So having said that, why do you choose to believe that smoking does not cause cancer based on the fact that all the data they come up with is epidemiological? Putting aside all differences of opinion on who pays for what study, how can any data obtained for either side of this debate be worth anything?
    As was said earlier regarding that big tobacco lawsuit, 5 studies were conducted. Two showed negative health effects, two showed no ill effects and one showed beneficial effects of smoking tobacco. This says to me that seeing as how all can’t be right and seeing it is impossible to determine which one (if any) may be right, we should just throw them all out. You can’t have two studies done by two different groups that come up with conflicting results and say for certain that one is right. But essentially that is what we have both been doing here, based upon our own personal bias.

    So the caption of this post: “Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!” is very misleading, and ultimately, inconclusive. Neither of us can prove our position as there is no real way to watch a cancer cell form with every puff of a cigarette. Likewise there is no way to conclusively rule it out either…

  60. Well, well, well… Look what turns out to be bogus after all. What a surprise!

    http://www.oem.msu.edu/MiFace/04MI223%20Investigation%20Reportrev8_1_07.pdf

    Notice how she was experiencing breathing problems BEFORE going to work. I guess SHS is just SO DAMN dangerous that it can actually magically go back in time and kill people in the past, huh?

    Of course, we never heard anything of this in the media reports, now did we?

  61. Yeah, but I don’t see your point. The original article clearly states that she didn’t manage her asthma very well. She most likely had breathing problems every day of her life. But breathing problems does not equal death. Even this report agrees that bars and resturants should go smoke free. They even quoted studys from the American Lung Association (which I know you would completely disagree with). You can’t cherry pick one sentence out of the whole 8 page document (okay, 6 pages technically) to try and make your case. Its like taking one passage out of the Bible and using it in the wrong context to try and fit your view. You have to take it as a whole in order to properly understand it.
    The fact she had breathing problems about an hour before she died does not negate the fact that it was SHS that filled her lungs to the point of no return – the straw that broke the camels back if you will. Sorry, but this report changes and challanges nothing.

  62. Are you serious? The attack that ended up killing her began BEFORE she came into contact with SHS! Ergo: SHS was clearly NOT the catalyst, and therefore not the cause of the attack. You can suggest that SHS played a role later on, and that if it were not for the subsequent exposure to SHS she would have lived through the attack. But, that then becomes pure speculation on your part.

    Also, the bar owner said that the bar wasn’t “overly smoky” that night – suggesting that she had worked in worse conditions previously without incident.

    The report is a good illustration of the typical irrationality of the anti-smoker mindset:

    1) Her attack began before being exposed to SHS.
    2) She had worked in worse conditions of exposure to SHS previously without incident.
    3) The case is atypical.
    4) The victim managed her condition poorly.
    5) No toxicology was obtained.

    Conclusion: SHS CLEARLY causes death in asthmatics!?!?!?!?!

    It’s ridiculous and insane. If I have a heart condition, and at 9:00PM I start feeling chest pains and I ignore them and head off to my local pizza parlour without my heart medication, then at 10:00PM, while eating pizza, I die from a massive coronary, the pizza obviously caused my death? Ludicrous.

  63. Yes, I’m serious (and don’t call me Shirley) …. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    If you go to a pizza parlour and chow down, knowing you had chest pains earlier, then yes, the pizza killed you. Just like the expression: Guns don’t kill people, Bullets do. The heart condition didn’t kill you. Chest pains (with a known heart condition) = heat attack. But, Heart Attack does not equal death. You can have strong chest pains, but a mild heart attack and still survive. If you go for pizza and the influx of grease stops your heart, then yes, the pizza killed you. Your heart condition is why you died, but the pizza was the how.
    The difference? You had a choice. You didn’t have to go for pizza. She didn’t have a choice. She had to go to work. She could have called in sick that night, sure, and it was her choice not to, but even if she did, the probability is high that she would have died the next time she encountered a bit more SHS.
    Her father indicated she had some breathing problems before she went to work, but the bar manager and DJ (I think it was) said she was breathing fine at the start of her shift. So the asthma attack she may or may not have had before she started working most likely subsided, although I will conceed that it is purly spaclative on my part. There is no way to know for sure.
    She had only worked there for a few weeks (if I remember correctly) so even though the bar may not have been ‘overly smokey’ that night (which is very subjective by the way, and a totaly useless observation) she has been inhailing SHS for a few weeks. This night, everything finally accumulated, and caused her death.
    Don’t get me wrong though, I know it was her asthma and the fact that she didn’t manage it well that was the ultimate reason why she died. I completly agree with that. But the fact of the matter is, SHS was what agrivated her asthma to the point of no return. It was the how.

    And you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. I did not conclude that SHS causes death in asthmatics. What I said (along with the medical examiner’s that handled this case) is that SHS caused HER death.

  64. Hello
    I dont know either of you are so i’m not going to make assumptions considering I really cannot be bothered to read the hundreds of comments you’ve posted but i was actually doing a case study on whether smoking causes cancer or not – and its so obvious that it does, i watch the BBC every day which has always been considered the most reliable source of information since it started. believe me im not brainwashed. What do you watch over there? FOX?
    Living in britain (i’m assuming both of you are americans) I live closely among many types of smokers older than me, younger than me and my age. From what i’ve read steve is with smoking and derek is against, well derek to be honest, like Laura said your a smoker in denial, I bet you’re a creationist too, why not? You have your own belief in the complete minority with so little evidence – just so i know who i’m arguing with, what is your age/occupancy? Because, Derek you seem like an extremely arrogant and massively egotistical prick

  65. Ok i’ve just seen the time that was submitted so now I assume, yes you are from eastern USA. My family is from there, Virginia, so i know what a lot of the people are like, not what i hear on the media, although that is pretty similar, the majority are all brainwashed idiots

  66. “I dont know either of you are so i’m not going to make assumptions… i’m assuming both of you are americans… I bet you’re a creationist too, why not?”

    Read: You’re an idiot.

    Go back to sleep. You can come back when you actually have an intelligent argument to make.

    “I was actually doing a case study on whether smoking causes cancer or not – and
    its so obvious that it does”

    Well… I guess it’s settled then. You can’t beat that argument. I guess I was wrong.

    Now, if it’s “so obvious” that smoking causes cancer, simply explain the causative mechanism to us and we can put the matter to rest once and for all.

    “i watch the BBC every day which has always been considered the most reliable source of information”

    The BBC is a state controlled media service. It’s not much better than FOX. You can search this blog for articles that provide absolute proof of the BBC caught, red-handed, knowingly and wilfully lying to the public regarding news stories.

    “believe me im not brainwashed”

    So says you. However, your posted diatribe betrays your claim.

    “You have your own belief in the complete minority with so little evidence”

    It seems to me I’m the only party so far that has yet to provide ANY evidence. Where’s yours? You’re the one making a claim. Substantiate it! Offer SOMETHING! So far, all you have is proclamation, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks.

    “just so i know who i’m arguing with, what is your age/occupancy?”

    My age? I’m a little bit older than NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS years old. As for my “occupancy”, I’m currently about half full.

    Because, Derek you seem like an extremely arrogant and massively egotistical prick

    That may be true. But, then I’d seem to be an arrogant, egotistical prick that is more intelligent, informed and free thinking than you are. And, doesn’t that just suck for you.

  67. “I bet you’re a creationist” was a way of me expressing how ignorant i think you are to believe that smoking doesnt cause cancer – and i didnt make assumptions because i didnt say you were one- and assuming your both americans – the time displayed when i submitted the message was 5 hours earlier east coast time of USA, or maybe your canadian

  68. “I bet you’re a creationist” was a way of me expressing how ignorant i think you are to believe that smoking doesnt cause cancer”

    “I bet you’re a creationist” was you attempting to introduce a red-herring — a straw-man argument. It was a baseless assumption on your part, and a logical fallacy. It’s a non-sequitur. Brainwashed anti-smokers always try such tactics. It’s a symptom of not having an argument based on reason, rationality or factual evidence. Because of this, you’re forced to grasp for something — anything — that you can actually argue against, since you find yourself unable to argue against the topic at hand. So you introduce a red-herring:

    I.e. – I’ll introduce creationism! If he bites, then I’ll knock down his creationist arguments! Then, it will look like he’s unintelligent, and, by association, this will debase his other arguments — if he believes in creationism, then anything else he believes must also be seen as untrue.

    That’s a logical fallacy. And, it only serves to illustrate the fact that you have no argument and you believe what you believe merely because you were told to believe it.

  69. Ok listen buddy, one can’t start an arguement without an introduction, i have a lot of evidence that supports the fact that smoking can cause cancer i just hadnt introduced it, (by the way i missed half of your first comment in reply to mine – im not blind my comp didnt show it or something) I wasnt intending to start an argument with you on creationism it just seemed your that sort of person and besides, it was only an insult, don’t take it too deeply. Your not incredibly intelligent or freely minded you just project yourself as that using a wide range of vocabulary that all americans seem to have, as they teach that in high schools over there in so much depth; grammar etc.
    Your not open minded your mad, it looks to me as though you’ve become so obsessed with the odd lie from the media, you yourself have become indoctrinated with the media opposing crowd in their beliefs that whatever they say is now a lie. Or YOU ARE DESPERATE in finding a way to believe that smokers aren’t a lot more prone to cancer than non-smokers – since you smoke yourself

  70. Oh, and I didnt say the BBC was 100% true, of course no broadcasting service is, but i can’t think of, or never have heard of a more reliable source of broadcasting in the world, which is what i originally said. And i do not get brainwashed, i’ll only question a news story/theory if it seems appropriate to, seriously, why would the government-make that every government in the world- lie about smoking causing cancer? All it will do is lose profit for the manufacturing companies.

  71. “Ok listen buddy, one can’t start an arguement without an introduction,”

    Says who? I do it all the time. We haven’t been introduced, yet, look at me arguing! Amazing, huh?

    “i have a lot of evidence that supports the fact that smoking can cause cancer i just hadnt introduced it,”

    So, introduce it. You’ve come on here and made an absolute claim, yet, so far, even after requests to do so, you’ve failed to provide any evidence for your claim. Therefore, at this time, the most reasonable conclusion is that you have none.

    “I wasnt intending to start an argument with you on creationism it just seemed your that sort of person”

    Bullshit. Just about every whack-job anti-smoker tries the same tactic. You got caught, and now you’re making excuses. At best it was a baseless, irresponsible assumption on your part (something which you previously, specifically claimed you wouldn’t do, no less) and it speaks volumes about your character, intellect, and ability to defend your position. You attempt such tactics because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

    I’ve been an activist in this field for ten years. I’ve seen your ilk attempt such things over and over and over again, countless times.

    “Your not incredibly intelligent or freely minded you just project yourself as that”

    Yeah. You’re right. I only “seem” smart. It’s just an illusion that I project. That’s why my books reside in library collections at ivy league universities — for the purposes of amusement. They’re interested in morons that put on a good show. You got me.

    “using a wide range of vocabulary that all americans seem to have, as they teach that in high schools over there in so much depth; grammar etc.”

    You’re kidding, right? American public schools teaching grammar? Please tell me you’re joking. Have you ever spoken to an American who’s gone through the public education system? Please tell me you’re kidding.

    “Your not open minded your mad, it looks to me as though you’ve become so obsessed with the odd lie from the media, you yourself have become indoctrinated with the media opposing crowd in their beliefs that whatever they say is now a lie. Or YOU ARE DESPERATE in finding a way to believe that smokers aren’t a lot more prone to cancer than non-smokers – since you smoke yourself”

    Jeez… you didn’t even bother to inform yourself to the nature of my position before you began shooting your mouth off, did you? Typical anti-smoker. “Smokers aren’t a lot more prone to cancer than non-smokers”? Who said anything about that?

    In fact, I’ve got a pretty good idea just how much more smokers are prone to some types of cancer than non-smokers. It’s about 8%. This post is about the causative relationship between smoking and cancer — a relationship which I claim there is no reasonable scientific evidence to substantiate.

    In the future, try informing yourself to the nature of the argument before engaging, you’ll come off as looking a lot less stupid, and I might even have a more difficult time of dissecting your nonsense.

    “Oh, and I didnt say the BBC was 100% true, of course no broadcasting service is… i’ll only question a news story/theory if it seems appropriate to”

    Wonderful! You know that no media source is infallible in their reporting, but you only question some stories. Others you just swallow whole, without question, presumably because they just seem right to you…. and, you don’t see the problem here?

    “seriously, why would the government-make that every government in the world- lie about smoking causing cancer? All it will do is lose profit for the manufacturing companies.”

    The answer to your question is easily obtainable through a myriad of sources. I tire of explaining it over and over to every ill informed anti-smoker nut-case who comes a long. Inform yourself regarding the argument at hand before you enter into it — You’ll do yourself a great service.

  72. First of all, I’m not an anti-smoker, I have smoked myself – tobacco and other drugs on the social occasion.
    I never said i was an anti smoker, we’re not talking about me not liking smokers, what we’re talking about is whether smoking causes cancer or not, the reason for that is because i can’t believe you deny the fact that smoking can cause cancer.

    I cant believe you ask me over and over to preovide evidence for this argument its everywhere! All top researching organisations – cancer research UK, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organisation dont even agree that smoking can cause cancer – they know. After years of experimenting and research.

    if i’m such a pathetic and novice person to argue with as you make me out to be, then why bother so much with me – you’ve made many points, of which the first few were criticising my literary skills, not relating to smoking and cancer.

    When I reach University you can be sure as hell I’m gonna look out for yuor name on the covers so I’ll know what not to read.

    And finally, you didnt answer my question: “why would the government-make that every government in the world- lie about smoking causing cancer?”

  73. All you seem to do since i started talking to you is analyse my literary and argumentative skills – so don’t complain to me about not bringing up enough evidence quick enough.
    It’s all there, just research those organisations yourself – its not bullshit, its not brainwashing its the truth and I am aware of how that may sound to you – I believe everything i see on the media.
    Well what else do they show that is worth lying about?
    God knows, have they shown you lot what the americans do to the people they capture in the war? The BBC does – they also show the odd occasion of the British torturing.

    Now I cant think of much more they’d lie about apart from the war, for example Germany and Britain in WW1, on which they really don’t seem to be hiding anything.

  74. wait a sec!
    you said you write books?
    Are you a scientist or anything titled?
    Because, dropping the argument, the original reason I found this blog was because of a science case study I’m doing, it would help a lot on my “evidence against section” if your opinion was valid in the aspect that your a writer or something.
    …?

  75. hey guys
    im kinda 50-50 on this one
    its is clear that there are some health risks to smokeing tobbaco. It is largely percieved that there is a correlation between frequent smokers and lung cancer or heart problems etc. The idea that smokeing CAUSEs cancer is untrue. Of course it increase the chances of getting cnacer but it does not CAUSE it . I know frequent smoker at the age of 90 that are still smoking and still breathing. But they are lucky. It is clear to me that smoking does not do anything good for the body and is dangerous to your lungs heart etc but it does not CAUSE cancer.
    derek is this view correct
    hugh is this view also correct
    althou i have no doctoret of qualification this is my view on the matter

  76. Edward: Yes, your view is correct. There is a definite corollary link between smoking (among many other things) and an increased risk in the development of certain types of cancer, which seems to be somewhat proportional to the frequency of smoking, and length of time engaged in the habit. However, a causative link has never been shown by any responsible science. Therefore, it is dishonest and irresponsible to use the phrase: “Smoking causes cancer.”

    As I have repeatedly said: Smoking does not cause cancer. It may bring about physiological circumstances which increase the actual cause’s ability to take hold and for the disease to then develop. But, it does not “cause” cancer.

    Our current best science shows that an average person in this country who has never smoked has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing lung cancer at some time in his or her life. A heavy smoker (everything else being equal) has about an 8 in 100 chance.

    Realistically, we must also remember that lung cancer is a very rare disease. The people you know who have lived long lives as smokers are the norm, not the exception. The fact that so many think it otherwise is testimony to the amount of hysteria the anti-smoking movement has been able to conjure. The FACTS are, MOST smokers never get lung cancer. MOST smokers die at some time in their 70s – the same as everyone else. A non-smoker might have a somewhat better chance of getting to average life expectancy, but nonetheless, MOST smokers get there, and well beyond, as well.

  77. Hugh:

    “i can’t believe you deny the fact that smoking can cause cancer.”

    You say you can’t believe it, but after repeated requests for you to supply a reasonable argument as to why you can’t believe it, you are either unable, or refuse to do so… and you ask me to believe you’re not brainwashed? Get real.

    You seem certain that smoking causes cancer… so, tell what makes you so certain. Oh yeah, because establishment entities told you so and you accept it without question… yeah, you’re not “brainwashed” at all.

    “I cant believe you ask me over and over to preovide evidence for this argument its everywhere!”

    Really? I’ve never found it. And, I’ve been looking “everywhere” for better than ten years. In fact, I’ve found quite the opposite. I have found a lot of proclamation regarding the causitive link between smoking and cancer. Proclamation is not evidence.

    ” All top researching organisations – cancer research UK, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organisation dont even agree that smoking can cause cancer – they know. After years of experimenting and research.”

    Such organizations make claims while providing science that argues the exact opposite. Why not contact one of those agencies and ask them to provide you with a single study that shows a corollary link of greater than 50%? Hell, even one approaching 50%. 50% is the general rule of thumb in epidemiology that you need to even begin to SUSPECT that there MIGHT be a causitive link. The best anyone has yet been able to responsibly do with smoking is around 10% — about 40 percentage points shy. But, as if by magic, different rules seem to apply for smoking than other areas of medical research.

    Or, you can simply ask them to explain to you the causative mechanism in smoking. See what they say.

    “if i’m such a pathetic and novice person to argue with as you make me out to be, then why bother so much with me – you’ve made many points, of which the first few were criticising my literary skills, not relating to smoking and cancer.”

    Uh… can you really be this obtuse? You engaged me. Remember? You came here and started throwing around claims and insults. If you come around here, poking at me with sticks, and offer nothing to back up your claims and insults, expect to get called on it. If you don’t like it, tough – stick your thumb back in your mouth and crawl back under the rock you came from.

    “And finally, you didnt answer my question: “why would the government-make that every government in the world- lie about smoking causing cancer?”

    I did answer that. Go back and re-read. I’m not going to argue for you. Do your own damned home-work.

  78. having read sum of the passages
    (not all of them im not sad )
    i have cum 2 the conclusion that derek is a wanker
    laura is ok
    nd hugh ( is my best m8) :)
    btw derek wat do u do with ur life???
    im a ski instructor
    hugh teaches sailing
    we get paid 4 the things we love
    were as u sit at a computer all day talkin about vocabulary
    have u ever smoke a joint ??
    have u even drunk a shot of vodka????
    please inform me of wat u do wid ur life??

  79. Tthe boy is right, you have a point – which doesnt mean your right.
    The fact is, one who smokes is much more likely to get cancer than one who doesnt.
    So you’ve made a point – which most people don’t agree is true, even if it is true. You don’t seem like the kinda person who has a lot of fun in his life. I doubt you have many friends.

    You take shit WAAAAAY too seriously, your definately so far up your own arse your hands type coming out of your mouth.

    Life’s not just about being right. C’mon, what the hell were you trying to prove to some random people you’ve never met before, you literally wrote essays in defence, and for what? A sixteen year old. I was just stetching ym debating skills with someone I can’t agree with. this internet blogging is all new to me.

    If this debate was in a book or at some sort of political conference, then why not, it would be of some importance. You are quite intellectual and very opinionated, you have a wide range of vocab and you’re good at structuring writing. But what, you expect people to idolise you for that?

    Thats nothing. Its a skill you were born with. To be honest you seem to act like a typical american, a stupidly over-exaggerative tone. I can tell by your use of insults and punctuation.
    One life essential you’ll never have the freedom to have fun.

    Try smoking a joint.

  80. “i have cum 2 the conclusion that derek is a wanker laura is ok”

    That’s because you’re stupid, and you don’t matter. You’re nothing, and you’ll likely never be anything. You’re doomed to a life of pathetic, ineffectualness and self-loathing. You’re nobodys, and that’s all you can look forward to. Enjoy it. And, you do understand that because of this, the fact that you find me to be a “wanker” and Laura to be “ok” is actually a compliment to me, and an insult to Laura, don’t you?

    “nd hugh ( is my best m8)”

    Congrats! You’ve got an idiot for a best mate! But then again, so does he.

    “btw derek wat do u do with ur life???”

    Here’s a little life lesson for the two of you — do with it what you will: Before you adversely engage someone, take a moment to figure out who it is you’re talking to, before you start talking. You’ll come off as looking like much less of a retard.

    All you’ve managed to do here is embarrass the fuck out of yourselves, and help me to prove my point that only brain-dead, irrational idiots come down on your side of the debate. Do you have any idea how many people are laughing at you right now? It would have taken you all of about two minutes to inform yourselves about me before opening your mouths and exposing yourselves as the idiots you are. But that never ocurred to you, huh? Hardley a surprise.

    I love it! Congratulations: You’re a couple of morons! And now, thanks to your own voluntary actions, you’ve shown yourself as such. Does it feel good?

    So, thanks guys. Thank you for once again showing that the anti side has no arguments and is made up largely of people like you.

    And, BTW, I’m not American.

  81. lol! now that is fucking funny! I love how they keep saying they can tell your american because of your good grammar. So should we be able to tell they are european because they are illiterate fucktards? LOL! ya! Good insult there guys! keep trying!

  82. I’m not embarrassed. If i was talking to all of you face to face then i would be embarrassed, but none of you have any idea who the fuck I am so there is no need to be embarrassed. I could be anyone. Were this not a weblog that potentially 6.5 000 000 000 people have access to, I would have conducted myself in a much more orderly fashion.

    People are laughing at me. Oh no i’ll die of shame, i can’t ever face anyone ever again.
    Damn it, these people can laugh but if they’re sad enough to have been listening to this conversation and laughing at people they don’t know then fine – laugh – what do i care???
    you sad pathetic losers.

    “I love it! Congratulations: You’re a couple of morons! And now, thanks to your own voluntary actions, you’ve shown yourself as such. Does it feel good?”

    Yup, feels great, because i’m not ashamed – no-one on this blog knows me, but hopefully the fact has been exposed to yourself and all your friends just how lame you all are – does it feel good?

    But yeah you’ve proved even more the point of how absolutely fucking sad you are, after finding out I am just a worthless pathetic moron, decades younger than you, and you being “someone who writes books for ivy league universities”, you continue yet to spend that time thinking and writig to insult me, you don’t even know me.
    Why would i be worth it derek? I know. Because you have nothing else to do with your free time, thts why, so you laugh at people you don’t even know with your sad, arrogant friends.

    The difference between you insulting me and me insulting you is that i’m doing it for a reason- you might get something out of listening to me saying to you – “get off the fucking computer and get a fucking life you lifeless robot.”
    Sure, i’m doing exams so I really can’t be fucked to argue right now about smoking causing cancer – I get way to bored sitting here at this desk, (where it face to face i would be more entertained) especially arguing to a robot who is programmed to know he is superior.
    But you kow, looks like this is your life – just you – maybe a couple of friends – all contemplating on your computers about how much better you are than everyone else. Well Derek, you enjoy that.
    I’m in my room quite a bit at the moment because of my upcoming exams, but soon i’ll be off with my life.

  83. “I’m not embarrassed. If i was talking to all of you face to face then i would be embarrassed, but none of you have any idea who the fuck I am so there is no need to be embarrassed.”

    So, what you’re saying is: “I don’t care if I’m stupid. I only care if other people know that I’m stupid.”

    Nice! That’s a spiffy way to go through life! You must be one hell of an achiever!

    Besides, what the hell kind of myopic, imbecilic outlook is that anyway? It doesn’t matter if people know who you are. They know that that WHOEVER you are, you’re an idiot. If you’re not embarrassed by that fact, it’s only testimony to your condition.

    “I could be anyone.”

    No you couldn’t! You couldn’t be, say, Seth Shostak, for instance. He’s intelligent. And, you’ve proven yourself to be unintelligent. So, you couldn’t be just “anyone.” Do you see how that works?

    “People are laughing at me. Oh no i’ll die of shame, i can’t ever face anyone ever again.
    Damn it, these people can laugh but if they’re sad enough to have been listening to this conversation and laughing at people they don’t know then fine – laugh – what do i care???
    you sad pathetic losers.”

    Why would someone need to be a sad, pathetic loser in order to pay attention to this thread? Listening to dimwitted children make fools of themselves in a public forum can be highly entertaining.

    “Yup, feels great, because i’m not ashamed – no-one on this blog knows me, but hopefully the fact has been exposed to yourself and all your friends just how lame you all are – does it feel good?”

    Umm, you’re the one that is apparently claiming to be stupid and proud of it… as long as nobody knows.

    “But yeah you’ve proved even more the point of how absolutely fucking sad you are, after finding out I am just a worthless pathetic moron, decades younger than you, and you being “someone who writes books for ivy league universities”, you continue yet to spend that time thinking and writig to insult me, you don’t even know me.”

    That’s right… have you not been able to figure out by now that I find enjoyment in toying with, and exposing brainless twats? It’s kind of a vice of mine.

    And, what’s this “decades younger than you” business? You think youth is an excuse for idiocy? I had twice your intellect when I was half your age.

    “Why would i be worth it derek? I know. Because you have nothing else to do with your free time, thts why, so you laugh at people you don’t even know with your sad, arrogant friends.”

    You’re still out to lunch. Remember what I said about finding out who people are before you engage them? You still haven’t learned your lesson… hopeless.

    “The difference between you insulting me and me insulting you is that i’m doing it for a reason- you might get something out of listening to me saying to you – “get off the fucking computer and get a fucking life you lifeless robot.”

    Yup. I’m a lifeless robot. As I said before, that’s why my books are in collections at ivy league universities – they catalogue the works of lifeless robots. That’s why my compositions appear in hundreds of television and film productions. That’s why people pay their hard earned money to hear me speak and see me perform. That’s why I have a spot-light on me on a regular basis. That’s why people in foreign countries that I’ve never even been to write newspaper and magazine articles about me. That’s why my name appears in encyclopedias and people I’ve never met before, and never will meet, quote my words, know my birthday, know what I look like, and seek out my work – It’s all because I’m a life-less robot.

    You’re a fucking tool.

    And yeah, I guess you’re correct. What I’m doing is without reason. What could be more trivial than fighting and exposing a movement that is stripping people of civil liberties for vain purposes and via fallacious means? What could be more of a waste of time than that? Maybe I should focus my effort on something that would REALLY move the whole human race ahead a few steps… like… teaching them to ski! You fucking addle-minded twerp.

    Every day of my life I do something that you’ll never have the guts to even attempt – I stand up to be counted. I fight. I possess the courage of my own convictions and I prove it on a daily basis. I fight for my principles and for what I believe is right. I do it vociferously, openly, publicly, and I stand ready to face the consequences, whatever they may be.

    What do you do? You pathetic little ineffectual worm.

  84. Lets get some things straight.
    I’m not a ski instructor.
    And I am not Edward – meaning I didnt post that badly written comment, so stop using it against me.
    Edward is not my best mate, I don’t have a best mate, I have many friends.
    And I didnt ask Ed to join this what was a debate unless he had something relevant to say, which in the beginning he did.

    “So, what you’re saying is: “I don’t care if I’m stupid. I only care if other people know that I’m stupid.” ”

    Obviously I seem stupid to you in your eyes as you are just definately the best thing that happened to mankind. But i’m not stupid, in fact, your stupid in the sense that you can’t think of another word to use, any fault in someone you recognise, you call themm stupid. Eg, the Laura case:

    “Derek – Laura is not stupid. She is brainwashed, has an inferiority complex, and an extremely limited vocabulary, those three things do not indicate diminished mental capacity. ”

    Mark agrees with me see. And you replied:

    “Nah. I think Laura’s just stupid. Sure, I don’t think those three things you mention, on their own, necessarily indicate diminished mental capacity. But, making an effort to put forth a vacuous, useless, derogatory comment, in the absence of any attempt to justify it, is at least suggestive of such.”

    Ok it’s a little suggestive but she was clearly someone who merely stumbled upon this blog and couldnt be bothered to say anymore – as she didnt return.

    There is a difference between stupid and many other mental issues. For example a friend of mine, who i know very well, is a creationist. As utterly stupid as that might seem, hes actually quite bright. He’s bright in the sense that he is good at maths, english, science and music – and many other academic subjects i’m sure. So, on the academic side, he’s relatively intelligent.
    However, he has the social skills of a caveman, which, one could say, is pretty stupid. He will literally blurt out insults and still not recognise how he has offended someone.
    So, what other words might we use for his faults such as being a creationist and having no social skills? Perhaps ignorant and stubborn? And, well for the social problem hes probably a little fucked up but the point is I have shown that a person can be intelligent, but his faults are not neccessarily stupid. Because believeing the genesis story and every word of the old testament – well one has to be very ignorant, also stubborn to accept the common sense and proof of evolution.

    I could be anyone. Please – the effort you made to prove this wrong was pathetic and utterly superfluous. Duh- I’m not someone from the third world who has no computer – “No shit really?”
    But jesus christ, it was just a fuckin statement I could be anyone. Fine. Anyone in any developed country that speaks english. Thats still millions.

    “Why would someone need to be a sad, pathetic loser in order to pay attention to this thread? Listening to dimwitted children make fools of themselves in a public forum can be highly entertaining.”

    Well damn – you are easily amused – especially for a guy ‘who has the spotlight on him all the time’ and all that glamour.

    And what the fuck is a tool. I don’t do this american slang. (and btw yes you are american after your claim to fame I researched you- being a geographer I happen to know that Canada is in North America. Did you?

    I’ll have you know that I spend my free time instructing sailing-and thats not a career! I don’t yet have the qualifications and experience to move the human race ahead a few steps – not that I’m for it (technology wise).

    Medecine and health: of course thats incredibly neccessary but I’m sick of seing spoilt brats 5 years old with mobile phones and all this new shit on them – playing hours a day on the latest video games. What is the main source of entertainment for kids these days? Video games. the thought of it makes me naucious. Its not even fuckign real!
    Have you seen the playstation 3 slogan? “This is living”
    Holy fuck I hate sony.

    But thats off the point, that was one of my views, your views appear to be screwed up. There are 70 cancer causing substance in a ciggarette. I’ll list them for you if you want. Smoking is a cause of cancer.

    If you fight so openly and publicly about this shit, then I cringe to think about the consequences you might get.

  85. “But i’m not stupid, in fact, your stupid in the sense that you can’t think of another word to use, any fault in someone you recognise, you call themm stupid.”

    Unintelligent, dimwitted, dense, obtuse, thick, stunted, blockheaded, hebetudinous, torpid, stuporous, moronic, imbecilic, harebrained, idiotic, softheaded, featherbrained, emptyheaded, scatterbrained, dumb, doltish….

    I can think of lots of words to use. “Stupid” is selected for the the sake of parsimony.

    “Eg, the Laura case:..
    Ok it’s a little suggestive but she was clearly someone who merely stumbled upon this blog and couldnt be bothered to say anymore – as she didnt return.”

    No, it’s very suggestive. As an intelligent, rational person, using the best evidence available to me, I can only conclude that the chances are far more likely that Laura is stupid (or pick any word from the above list that suits your fancy) than she is intelligent. An intelligent person would have been far more likely to conduct themselves in a vastly different manner. Laura’s manner, for the reasons I explained, was characteristic of someone with a diminished intellect. If you disagree, then explain to me why you feel her manner was characteristic of someone with a respectable degree of intelligence. You can’t do that, because nothing in her statement was suggestive of intelligence… but, you’re still arguing in Laura’s favour. What do you think that suggests about you?

    “There is a difference between stupid and many other mental issues. For example a friend of mine, who i know very well, is a creationist. As utterly stupid as that might seem, hes actually quite bright. He’s bright in the sense that he is good at maths, english, science and music – and many other academic subjects i’m sure. So, on the academic side, he’s relatively intelligent…. blah, blah, blah…”

    Now you’re arguing semantics. Desperate, are we?

    “I could be anyone. Please – the effort you made to prove this wrong was pathetic and utterly superfluous. Duh- I’m not someone from the third world who has no computer – “No shit really?”
    But jesus christ, it was just a fuckin statement I could be anyone. Fine. Anyone in any developed country that speaks english. Thats still millions.”

    And, you criticize ME for taking shit “WAAAAAY too seriously”??? Get real! That was a stab… should have been obvious.

    “And what the fuck is a tool. I don’t do this american slang. (and btw yes you are american after your claim to fame I researched you- being a geographer I happen to know that Canada is in North America. Did you?”

    Yeah, ’cause the common usage of the term “American” in no way carries the implication of being in reference to a U.S. citizen. That’s how people commonly speak – to use the word “American” to refer to Canadians. Sure.[/sarcasm] But, you’re not stupid… oh no! Not one bit.

    If you meant North American, you would have said North American. You didn’t, you said “American.” Which, according to common colloquial usage, specifically refers to people from the U.S. And, now you’re either lying about it in order to try and cover your ass, or, your language skills are so poor that you don’t know the difference. Which is it?

    “I’ll have you know that I spend my free time instructing sailing-and thats not a career! I don’t yet have the qualifications and experience to move the human race ahead a few steps – not that I’m for it (technology wise).

    Medecine and health: of course thats incredibly neccessary but I’m sick of seing spoilt brats 5 years old with mobile phones and all this new shit on them – playing hours a day on the latest video games. What is the main source of entertainment for kids these days? Video games. the thought of it makes me naucious. Its not even fuckign real!
    Have you seen the playstation 3 slogan? “This is living”
    Holy fuck I hate sony.”

    ??? What’s this disjointed tirade all about, exactly?

    “But thats off the point, that was one of my views, your views appear to be screwed up. There are 70 cancer causing substance in a ciggarette. I’ll list them for you if you want. Smoking is a cause of cancer.”

    No, it’s not. I’ve provided a sound argument as to why such a statement is irresponsible. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. But provide your argument. So far, after repeated requests to do so, you’ve either failed, or refused. Yet, you apparently still wish to be taken seriously.

    One more time: It’s very simple. If smoking causes cancer, simply provide the causative mechanism and you win. Or, you can try to refute my argument — How about explaining why epidemiological standards don’t apply to tobacco usage? Explain why smoking only requires a corollary rate of under 15% before it’s labelled causative, when everything else requires AT LEAST 50%?

    And, by the way, there are over 70 cancer causing substances in the average western daily diet as well. If this is your standard, then we must say that eating also causes cancer. This may be true, but then one must accept that the label of “causative” becomes diluted to a point that it loses all weight. And, therefore, justification for any sort of action against smoking becomes unwarranted.

    “If you fight so openly and publicly about this shit, then I cringe to think about the consequences you might get.”

    You should cringe. But, for the time being, the consequences are much less severe than many of my family members suffered during WWII when they fought the uprise of the same societal mentalities. The anti-smoking movement is born out of a fascist-like mindset. To fight against such pestilence, I’ll gladly suffer the consequences — no matter how terrible they might be.

  86. When I asked for another word for stupid I meant a word that actually described that certain flaw in someone, your use of the word stupid was repeatedly used as a filler, instead of maybe(depending on the circmstances) ‘ignorant’ etc.

    You have no more evidence to say laura is stupid than i do to say she has a degree of intelligence. It is suggestive by the simplistic use of words and a point without support- and i don’t want to repeat that again, that she is stupid for not conducting herself into a more intelligent argument, however, who’s to say she really couldnt be bothered to get into some pointless debate with you lot. Because that is also suggestive by her tone. It is robotic to completely rely on the evidence given without using common sense, in this case that is true.

    Desperate for arguing semantics?? WTF I was explaining my point on the difference between stupid and other intellectual flaws, that word ‘stupid’ and any of its equilaterals can be used on some people – just not everyone.

    Like you had a ‘stab’ at me about me being anyone, well I stabbed you back about you being an American. Should have been obvious.

    Ok fuck it i have too much to do, I’m going to make a statement about the links between smoking and cancer, and you either agree or disagree.

    One who smokes ciggarettes is more likely to get many types of cancers than one who doesnt. However the one who doesn’t may also get any of those cancers, they just have much less chance. Therefore smoking is a cause of cancer? As is many things?
    Cars are a cause of early death. But one who drives may not die early, although they will have more chance of dying early then one who doesn’t.

    With smoking the chances of the one dying are obviously quite a bit higher. But the principles are the same.

    Now if you’ll agree with that, I understand your point of how causative means 50% and over in the use of correllated results for evidence. However I still dont see why if (x and y) is causing an ongoing correlation, under 50% to everything they’re affecting, it would not make that factor, (x and y), a cause of something.

    But the fact is, more people die of lung cancer who smoke than those who don’t, by a obvious and hefty difference.

    epidemiological standards – I’m not quite sure what they are but if they’re a certain high percentage of an amount of deaths due to a certain factor that make those deaths an epidemic, such as smoking in this instance, then duh – like i said not everyone dies from smoking, so it would hardly be an epidemic, practically everyone died from the plague, that was an epidemic.
    Thats like asking- is depression an epidemic? Since depression can lead to suicide. A factor doesnt have to be an epidemic to kill people or give them cancer.

  87. One more thing:

    “The anti-smoking movement is born out of a fascist-like mindset. To fight against such pestilence, I’ll gladly suffer the consequences — no matter how terrible they might be.”

    So, effectively, you’re going out of your way to fight against people who are trying to save lives?

  88. “When I asked for another word for stupid I meant a word that actually described that certain flaw in someone…”

    Uh, I know… jeez. You can’t really be this obtuse, can you?

    “You have no more evidence to say laura is stupid than i do to say she has a degree of intelligence.”

    Of course I do! What are you basing your estimation of intelligence on? I’m basing my estimate on the fact that Laura’s actions are in keeping with the common actions of someone of meagre intellect. I’ve already explained all of this.

    An intelligent person, when offering up the effort to engage in a subject, will also offer a defence of their position. Intelligent people don’t say things like “Lol! You’re in denial. HAHAHA.” and then split. Such a thing is characteristic of someone with a less than respectable intellect. If someone offers opinion in such a situation, yet makes no attempts at defending that opinion, nine times out of ten, it’s because they can’t defend it. And, a person who holds opinions which they are unable to reasonably defend is a stupid person.

    Intelligent people just don’t operate in such a way. Intelligent people exercise independent thought and critical thinking in forming their opinions, and so, are adequatley able to provide a rational argument in defence of their opinions. Stupid people exercise no such measures, but instead rely on other people to form opinions and deliver those opinions to them, which they then accept as their own. As such, they are not equipped to defend their own opinions.

    Laura’s actions are in keeping with someone from the latter group — She has an opinion: “Smoking is evil” But, she doesn’t know exactly why she has that opinion. It was fed to her, and she didn’t question it. She just adopted it. So, when she sees someone countering her opinion, she “just knows” its wrong and so speaks out: “Lol! Smokers in denial. HAHAHA!” But, she has no rational defence of her opinion, so she splits and isn’t heard from again. These are not actions in keeping with the expected actions of an intelligent person.

    Sure, there’s a chance Laura might not be stupid – she might even be a genius. But, do you want to wager money on it? I’d think any rational person would conclude that based on what we have from Laura, the odds are heavily, heavily in favour of the fact that she’s of AT LEAST below average intelligence. I.e. – stupid.

    “who’s to say she really couldnt be bothered to get into some pointless debate with you lot.”

    If that was the case, it’s far, far more likely she wouldn’t have offered anything at all. Without offering a defence for her position, an intelligent person would have simply seen her comment as a pointless waste of time.

    “Because that is also suggestive by her tone. It is robotic to completely rely on the evidence given without using common sense, in this case that is true.”

    ??? what are you talking about? It’s “robotic” to rely on the evidence at hand?? Are you for real??? It’s “robotic” to exercise rationality, reason, and independent deduction against the evidence available?? So, what? Non-roboticism would involve jumping to unsubstantiated, pre-conceived ideas? Get the fuck out of here.

    “Desperate for arguing semantics?? WTF I was explaining my point on the difference between stupid and other intellectual flaws, that word ’stupid’ and any of its equilaterals can be used on some people – just not everyone.”

    Yes. Desperate. You’re arguing semantics — it’s a common diversionary tactic. You don’t have a rational argument, so you resort to picking apart words, meanings and usage. It’s a common and clear sign of desperation in one who is losing an argument.

    “Like you had a ’stab’ at me about me being anyone, well I stabbed you back about you being an American. Should have been obvious.”

    Except that… you’re lying, and I wasn’t.

    “One who smokes ciggarettes is more likely to get many types of cancers than one who doesnt. However the one who doesn’t may also get any of those cancers, they just have much less chance. Therefore smoking is a cause of cancer? As is many things? Cars are a cause of early death. But one who drives may not die early, although they will have more chance of dying early then one who doesn’t.”

    Your point is irrelevant. There is a clear and present causative mechanism for automobiles as a causative factor in early death. It’s apples and oranges. I’ve asked you over and over and over again to provide a causative mechanism in smoking — you’ve STILL either failed or refused to do so.

    “With smoking the chances of the one dying are obviously quite a bit higher. But the principles are the same.”

    Quite a bit? I suppose that’s a little subjective. All other things being equal, a non-smoker has about a 1% chance of dying from lung-cancer. A lifetime heavy smoker has less than an 8% chance. Do you consider that “quite a bit”? I don’t — when you consider that a lifetime heavy-smoker has a better than 92% chance of not dying from lung cancer. Hell, that’s only about 7.9% worse than my odds of not dying due to an asteroid colliding with the earth.

    “Now if you’ll agree with that, I understand your point of how causative means 50% and over in the use of correllated results for evidence. However I still dont see why if (x and y) is causing an ongoing correlation, under 50% to everything they’re affecting, it would not make that factor, (x and y), a cause of something.”

    Because WE DON’T HAVE A FUCKING CAUSATIVE MECHANISM!!!! Without that, any conclusion as to causation is SPECULATION ONLY! So, what are we speculating causation on? A LESS THAN 7 FUCKING % CORRELATION! Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion?

    Look: If you were to come to me and say: “We don’t know exactly how it’s doing it, but 90% of people who eat chocolate covered peanuts are dying of dippydoodalitis. So, we speculate thatchocolate covered peanuts CAUSE dippydoodalitis.” I’d say that’s a pretty damned safe bet, and your deduction of cause is very likely sound. But, if you came to me and said: “We don’t know exactly how it’s doing it, but less than 7% of people who eat chocolate covered peanuts are dying of dippydoodalitis. So, we speculate that peanuts CAUSE dippydoodalitis.” I’d laugh in your face.

    Obviously, the chances are very, very, very great that something OTHER than chocolate covered peanuts are actually the cause here. The vast majority of people who eat chocolate covered peanuts regularly are not getting the disease, so an increase in cases among the peanut eaters over the non-peanut eaters is suggestive of only a corollary link, and not a causative one. And, unless you can show a causative mechanism, it would be ENTIRELY IRRESPONSIBLE, based on the available evidence, to state that chocolate covered peanuts cause dippydoodalitis. And, any medical professional that did make such a statement would be immediately ridiculed out of a career forever… unless it was tobacco that he or she had made the statement about — then, for some magic reason that no one seems able to explain, it would be a perfectly reasonable statement to make.

    “But the fact is, more people die of lung cancer who smoke than those who don’t, by a obvious and hefty difference.”

    Yes, by less than a 7% difference in HEAVY-smokers. (if you call that “hefty”) That’s why there is a known corollary effect. Not a causative one.

    Occasional smoking (less than one pack a week) has never shown any increase in lung cancer rates over non-smokers, by the way. Strange for something that CAUSES lung cancer, wouldn’t you say?

    “epidemiological standards – I’m not quite sure what they are but if they’re a certain high percentage of an amount of deaths due to a certain factor that make those deaths an epidemic, such as smoking in this instance, then duh – like i said not everyone dies from smoking, so it would hardly be an epidemic, practically everyone died from the plague, that was an epidemic.
    Thats like asking- is depression an epidemic? Since depression can lead to suicide. A factor doesnt have to be an epidemic to kill people or give them cancer.”

    Who’s talking about epidemics??? What do epidemics have to do with anything? I’m talking about causation.

    “So, effectively, you’re going out of your way to fight against people who are trying to save lives?”

    Of course not. That’s an absurd question.

    The problem is that the anti-smoking movement is not interested in saving lives. That’s simply a ruse they use in order to disingenuously gain a moral high-ground from which to launch their crusade — the same way the ancient, Christian crusaders were trying to save souls. They weren’t really interested in saving souls. Their own souls were already saved and that’s all they really cared about. What they were interested in was gaining power, territory, and influence for the church. Of course, if they let on that that’s what their intentions were, people would think they were assholes and their own ranks would turn against them. So, they deluded themselves and their followers into believing that what they were doing was noble, right, and pure, because they were saving heathens from an eternity of damnation. They in fact believed that they were doing good by saving people from themselves and their own poor choices. Sound familiar?

    It’s the same with the anti-smoking crusade. They aren’t really interested in their own health, or anyone else’s. They’re interested in ridding themselves of an annoyance. Smoking is something that they possess a visceral dislike for, and they aren’t above trampling over the freedoms and liberties of others in order to rid themselves of their annoyance.

    If this is not the case, then why did the W.H.O. announce that battling smoking would be its primary cause at a time when more than 10,000 children EACH AND EVERY DAY was dying from malaria in Africa? Tobacco kills a minority of its users. And, it kills most of them in their 70s. And, every one of them make a conscious choice of will as to whether they want to smoke or not. Whereas, malaria is an easily defeatable diseases, if you have the money to do so, that kills millions of people of all ages. And, none of them choose to get malaria. So, if the issue is saving lives, why does smoking come before battling malaria?

    BECAUSE SAVING LIVES ISN’T THE ISSUE. The issue is an attempt at social-engineering with the purpose of ridding the antis of an annoyance. It’s fuelled by the coffers of Big-Pharma. You see, poor African kids have no money to buy medicine. But, a shit load of rich westerners have been made so terrified, and subjected to such hysteria, they’ll shell out small fortunes for smoking cessation devices. Afraid that their habit is going to kill them off early, they’ll dole ought oodles of bills to get the nicotine patch. But, oops, the patch has a greater than 80% failure rate. But, Joe smoker is still terrified and still needs to quit. So, knowing the patch didn’t work for him, next time he shells out money for the nicotine gum. But, that’s a fail as well, so off for another try, tossing out more money for Zyban. And, on it goes. And, who do you think manufactures and sells all of those smoking cessation products? Big-pharma! That’s who. And, just by coincidence I’m sure, who do you think are among the highest campaign contributors to many, many elected officials who scream and cry about the dangers of smoking — the primary effect of which is scaring the shit out of Joe Smoker so he becomes terrified and adopts an hysterical need to attempt to quit over and over again? It couldn’t be Big-pharma, could it? Who are the major funders of organizations such as the W.H.O. who conduct all of the “smoking is evil” studies and yell about the dsngers of smoking from the roof-tops? Couldn’t be Big-Pharma again, could it? And on, and on it goes.

    Not only that, but the anti-smoking movement is knowingly and actively engaged in actions that RESULT IN THE DEATHS OF SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS ALIKE. As long as this “if you smoke you’ll die young” nonsense is perpetuated, less money and resources are spent on cancer research in areas that have been fallaciously linked to smoking. Why spend time and money trying to find out how to help lung-cancer patients when we “know” that all we have to do is get people to stop smoking and the problem will go away? Of course, if you happen to be a non-smoker who contracted lung-cancer… well, too bad for you! I guess you’re just going to have to die, because some damned, fascist anti-smoker finds the smell of smoke disagreeable. The anti-smoking movement KILLS PEOPLE in order to rid themselves of their annoyance.

    Anti-smokers saving lives? Give me a break. They’re a group of puritanical, fascist low-life scum suckers. Most of them would slit their own mother’s throats if it served their purposes. In 1940 they were pinning yellow stars on Jews and pink triangles on homosexuals… that’s not socially acceptable anymore — you can’t do it now without being lynched. But, you can do it to smokers and nobody gives a damn. So, they’ve found their outlet for this era.

  89. Wow! Your blog states it correctly! There is something much deeper than the issue of smoking. It’s about rights. Our rights are slowly being stolen from us. While we still possess the rebel american attitude ,if they were to expell all of our rights, it would be utter chaos. However, to ensure that there isn’t an uprising, Are rights are ultimately vanishing yearly! We need to reverse these smoking laws, its hurting free business,

  90. Wow. I go away for a few months and all ‘you know what’ breaks loose…
    Derek, I certainly hope I’m not as bad as Hugh and Edward….

    I don’t have time to write much at the moment, but I was hoping that you could extrapolate on one of your comments for me.
    You mentioned something about having evidence that shows a causative link between driving a car and early death. I am very interested to see what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you are saying that if you drive a car, you will die early, as it ’causes’ early death. But just like long time smokers, I know that a high percentage of drivers make it well into their 70′s. How is this example any better than the ones we Anti-Smokers give?
    I’m sure I miss-read the context as I was skimming through, so by all means is this not intended as an attack against your position. I am just hoping for some more clarification.

    Thanks.

  91. Welcome back Steve,

    I’m positive that I never said anything about a causative link between driving a car and early death in any absolute terms. I did say that if a person drives a car, he or she accepts a risk of death that a person who never steps into a car would not be accepting. In fact, that’s my whole point regarding smoking. So, to say that the use of automobiles ensures an early death would be arguing counter to my point, as I’ve regularly made comparisons between the two activities.

    If you choose to smoke, you’re accepting health risks that a person who does not smoke is never subjected to. But, the same can be said for many of life’s chosen activities. If you choose to make use of powered transportation, you’re also accepting health risks that you wouldn’t be subjected to if you never stepped foot inside an automobile. It doesn’t mean you’re going to die early, it just means you have more of a chance of doing so than you would have had you abstained from such activity. If you never smoke, your chances of dying from lung-cancer are less than if you do smoke – if you never step foot inside a car, your chances of dying in an auto accident are less than if you do.

    Near the end of my sixth comment on this article, you can see where I’ve written:

    “Yes, smoking might kill me. It might even kill me while I’m still young. But, it most probably wont. I also might die in a car accident. I might even die in this car accident while I’m still young. But, I most probably wont.”

    Which is directly counter to the idea of me claiming that driving is causative of early death.

    I believe the quote you might be referring to is this one:

    “As far as our current best science tells us, smoking is as causative of cancer as automobiles are causative of drunk driving. There is a scientifically proven corollary link between smoking and cancer, there is NO causative link.”

    That’s the only thing I can find that might be mistakenly interpreted to mean that cars are causative of early death. However, I’m sure that if you’ll re-read the statement, you’ll agree that it’s not saying any such thing.

  92. Ah, I believe I’ve just found the quote that you were referring to:

    I said:

    “There is a clear and present causative mechanism for automobiles as a causative factor in early death.”

    And, yes, I believe you’ve misinterpreted it. The fault may have been mine for not being clear enough, however. Perhaps I could have been more precise in my wording.

    However, when taken in context with what it was said in reply to, I’m sure you can see that I didn’t mean this to say that cars are causative of early death in a general sense, but instead that, often, when early death does occur in a vehicle, there is a clearly apparent mechanism which points to the automobile as being the causative factor. I.e. – Someone dies in an auto-accident, and investigators can see, unequivicoally, that the brakes went out on the car, or there was a manufacturing fault in a tire that caused it to blow out at a high speed and send the car into an uncontrollable state. Etc.

    However, there is never any such clearly apparent mechanism regarding smoking. Whenever a smoker dies early from some illness that has been linked to smoking, there is nothing to which a Doctor can point to and say: “You see this? This is how we know that if he had never smoked, he’d still be alive today.” Whenever a smoker dies from some “smoking related illness”, due to many practical confounders, there is always a question of whether or not smoking was actually the cause. There is no illness, no physical symptom, that we know of, which is exclusive to smokers.

    You can smoke six packs a day for 45 years and die of lung cancer when you’re 60. But, there’s no way to determine if it was the smoking that gave you cancer, or if it was the two years you spent working in the paint factory. Or, that old house you used to live in that was filled with asbestos. etc., etc., But, if you die early in a car accident, we can be certain you wouldn’t have died if you had never gotten into the car.

  93. Yes, that was the quote I was referring to.
    The thing that I don’t agree with though is when you say

    “there is nothing to which a Doctor can point to and say: “You see this? This is how we know that if he had never smoked, he’d still be alive today.” Whenever a smoker dies from some “smoking related illness”, due to many practical confounders, there is always a question of whether or not smoking was actually the cause. ”

    It is true that the effects of smoking could also be blamed on other factors, but so could the car accident. Yes, the tire blew out, but did the driver die because the tire blew out, or because they didn’t know enough about driving to properly control the car after the blow out?

    I’m pretty sure that doctors can look at someone and say that he died because there was too much tar in his lungs, which caused them to not filter air properly, which allowed the cancer cells to grow undetected until it was too late, thereby showing that had this person never smoked, he would still be alive today. It may not be conclusive evidence, but the probability that is was the smoking that killed him is high.

    Does everyone who is exposed to Radon gas contract cancer? No
    Does this mean that Radon gas exposure does not cause cancer? No

    Does everyone who smokes contract cancer? No
    Does this mean that smoking does not cause cancer? No

    The point is that evidence and statistics from organizations around the world have concluded that smoking does indeed cause cancer, or at the very least, increases your chances of getting it. If you choose to belive that all these organizations are in some mass consipracy to keep big-pharma rolling in the dough, then that is up to you. Personally, I don’t think any group of people that large, and that diverse with their own agendas would be capable of pulling off such a large scale deception throughout the world. You have to remember it is not just the western world that has come to these conclusions. The Asian countrys, Middle Eastern, and just about every other country in the world agrees. When have the world leaders ever agreed on anything? Militant states couldn’t care less if their pharmacutical companies are making money, let alone if the American ones are. The conspiracy on the level you are supposing is just too grand to be feasiable in our current state of the world.

  94. “It is true that the effects of smoking could also be blamed on other factors, but so could the car accident. Yes, the tire blew out, but did the driver die because the tire blew out, or because they didn’t know enough about driving to properly control the car after the blow out?”

    That’s irrelevant. Whether the tire blew out, or the accident was due to driver error – the cause is still directly attributable to the usage of the automobile. If you die in a car accident, we can know, beyond any doubt, that had you not been using an automobile, you would not have died. The same thing can not be said with smoking. To attribute a direct correlation between smoking and any death is pure speculation, which may or may not be correct, based no statistical evidence, which may or may not be accurate.

    With the exception of those who have died in fires caused by cigarettes, there has never, in human history, been a smoker who has died, where anyone can claim, beyond doubt, that it was smoking that killed them.

    “I’m pretty sure that doctors can look at someone and say that he died because there was too much tar in his lungs, which caused them to not filter air properly, which allowed the cancer cells to grow undetected until it was too late, thereby showing that had this person never smoked, he would still be alive today. It may not be conclusive evidence, but the probability that is was the smoking that killed him is high.”

    Well, you’re wrong. I’ve spoken with pathologists directly and have been informed that it’s impossible to tell at autopsy whether or not a person was a smoker. The old “smoker’s lungs are black” canard is a myth. It’s become unquestioned and popular based on a lie promoted by the anti-smoking movement. That lie is the old photo-slides of a smoker’s lung next to a non-smoker’s lung. I’ve sure you’ve seen those images. The problem is, it’s a lie. When you see those slides, what you’re looking at is a lung taken from someone who died from something other than lung cancer, next to a slide taken from someone who did die of lung cancer. The truth is, if you took a lung out of a smoker who didn’t have lung cancer, and a non-smoker who didn’t have lung cancer, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. And, vice versa, a non-smoker’s lung, ravaged by the effects of lung cancer, would look equally black and disfigured.

    And, even if your point were true, it does nothing to argue against the fact that any claim of death due to smoking is nothing more than a guess. Not so with automobiles.

    “The intriguing problem of the nature of the black pigment of the human lung has been examined chemically and with electron microscope. It is a mixture of inorganic materials (silicates, aluminates, and other trace metals), some elemental carbon, and a highly insoluble pigment, probably organic in nature. Concerning its origin, comparison of its composition with the medical history of the individ- ual failed to reveal any correlation in the group studied. Also, when the case histories of the pa- tients, their smoking histories, and their occupations were compared with the patterns of lung pigments observed in the electron microscope, no correlation was found between them (15). 291″ — Joyce K. Newman, A. E. Vatter, and O. K. Reiss. Webb-Waring Institute and the Departments of Biochemistry and Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver. Archives of Environmental Health 1967 Oct;15:420-429.

    “Does everyone who is exposed to Radon gas contract cancer? No Does this mean that Radon gas exposure does not cause cancer? No”

    No, that fact alone doesn’t mean that Radon gas doesn’t cause cancer. But, it does mean that, in the absence of further, conclusive evidence, it’s irresponsible to claim that it does. Without a mechanism, and without a sufficient corollary rate, your claim is speculation. And, it’s disingenuous to base absolute claims on speculation.

    I don’t know who you are. I’ve never met you. But, I know that on a global scale, there’s a better than one in six chance that you’re Chinese! That’s pretty good odds Especially considering that if you’re a heavy smoker, your chance of contracting lung cancer is about 0.8 in 10. So, would it be reasonable of me then to go around claiming in absolute terms that Steve is Chinese? Of course not.

    “The point is that evidence and statistics from organizations around the world have concluded that smoking does indeed cause cancer”

    No evidence, no statistic has ever said any such thing. “Some” evidence, “some” statistics have shown that smoking “might” be a cause. No study has ever born this out beyond speculation.

    “The conspiracy on the level you are supposing is just too grand to be feasiable in our current state of the world.”

    Oh please! Don’t be so naive. Never in human history has it ever been more feasible. We live in a state of global economy. The poor states, not having the resources to do their own investigative research, follow the lead of the rich, industrialized states. And, the rich states are all plutocracies now, headed by corporate interests. The WTO outright dictates trade policy among practically all member nations, and the WHO dictates health policy among the same. Both organizations are headed by corporate interests. Their very lifeblood is the money that flows through them from corporate wallets.

    But, your argument is the same fallacy that’s always been used by the uninformed to dismiss the possibility of injustices. It was the same during WW2, when rumours of wide-scale genocide began trickling in. You heard the same thing, over and over “An entire nation’s government is exterminating millions of people in secret? Ludicrous! You can’t keep that sort of thing a secret! It would leak, people would talk! It couldn’t be done. There’d be dissension and uprisings. It’s obviously hog-wash!”

    Well, it wasn’t hog-wash then, and it isn’t now.

  95. I’ve spoken with pathologists directly and have been informed that it’s impossible to tell at autopsy whether or not a person was a smoker. The old “smoker’s lungs are black” canard is a myth.

    Okay, if all that is true, then explain to me what in the world that black disgusting stuff is that a lot of smokers cough up, but non-smokers never seem to have?
    Also, I am willing to bet that for every PHD out there that says there is no way to tell the difference, there is one that says there is.
    Case in point: http://www.medicinenet.com/smokers_lung_pathology_photo_essay/article.htm

    Of the many things this article says, it mentions:
    “Moreover, since autopsies are done in less than 10% of patients who die in hospitals and less than 1% of patients who die in nursing homes, we really can’t prove why most smokers die.”
    So your pathologist friends are only getting a small sample to go by apparently… hardly enough to make a definitive statement.

    No, that fact alone doesn’t mean that Radon gas doesn’t cause cancer. But, it does mean that, in the absence of further, conclusive evidence, it’s irresponsible to claim that it does.

    So if a person works with Radon gas every day of his life, you think it is irresponsible to let him know that evidence shows he has a higher chance of getting cancer? Even if the evidence is inconclusive, he would have a right to know there is a chance.

    The poor states, not having the resources to do their own investigative research, follow the lead of the rich, industrialized states

    Look at Myanmar for an example. They wouldn’t even let outside world aid come in and help their typhoon ravaged cities. Do you think they are going to believe/listen to/support what other countries say about smoking? Keep in mind that in that country:

    “But the culture of tobacco use is also widely practiced among rural women in Myanmar. It has been culturally and socially accepted since ancient times,” Dr Nyo Nyo Kyaing said.

    The culture there has always been that smoking is socially acceptable.
    So even these people are discovering on their own that smoking is not good for you. Sure they have read the WHO reports and what not, but they have also realized the problems on their own.

    I wasn’t around during WWII so I can’t comment on exaclty what was running through peoples minds back then. But remember that it did leak, and the world did find out about it. Also, it was really only a secret at the beginning. Once word got out, the Jews and Gays that lived in Europe and knew all too well it was real.

    I can understand your position on the idea of smoking ‘causing’ cancer, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why you won’t accept the fact that there is something to all this. Smoking is not healthy no matter how you look at it, and of all the preventable causes of death out there, smoking is the top. Ask your family doctor, don’t take my word for it. In Canada doctors are paid by the federal coffers. He isn’t paid, supported, or endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies. His interest is your health, not the Nicorette company… (Yes, it is true that doctors do get free samples of company products to give out – but they use this to try it. If the patient comes back a while later with no change, the doctor will not prescribe it. And indirectly the federal government gets money from pharma-companies, but it also gets some from big-tobacco too, so I feel this is irrelevant).

    PS: Heres hoping the ‘blockquote’ tags worked. I often have trouble with those for some weird reason… you need a preview button :-)

  96. Okay, if all that is true, then explain to me what in the world that black disgusting stuff is that a lot of smokers cough up, but non-smokers never seem to have?

    First of all, I’ve never seen a smoker cough up black stuff. I’ve been smoking a pack a day for 22 years, and I’ve never coughed up black stuff. Smoker’s sometimes cough up phlegm – this is mostly yellow in appearance. Sometimes, it has a brown colour. The heavier a smoker you are, the more often you’ll cough this up, and the more discoloured it will be.

    The phlegm is produced in a smoker’s lungs as a protective mechanism against inflammation. Your lungs line your bronchial passages with mucus when they become inflamed. The mucus is sticky, and if it’s present in the lungs, it will trap inhaled smoke within it.

    The “black stuff” seen at autopsy in excised lung samples, in the tissue is present in both smoker’s and non-smoker’s alike. Studies done (an excerpt of one such study I supplied in my previous post) has shown that case histories do not reveal a link between the presence of this substance and a smoking history.

    Also, I am willing to bet that for every PHD out there that says there is no way to tell the difference, there is one that says there is.
    Case in point: http://www.medicinenet.com/smokers_lung_pathology_photo_essay/article.htm

    Nice self-contradicting article you linked to. Did you even read it?

    Examples:

    “Even more disturbing is the fact that COPD is the only one of the “top 5″ causes of death to increase in the past decade.”

    What? Odd, since smoking rates have plummeted in the same time frame.

    Two sentences later:

    These statistics are especially sad because COPD is preventable disease [sic] by stopping smoking;

    How can they get away with this lunacy??? First they make a statement which claims that as smoking rates decline, the rate of COPD increases. Then they say if you want to prevent COPD, stop smoking! Typical anti-smoker irrationality. How can you not see this lunacy?

    It continues:

    “Remarkably, despite a wealth of information on death rates (mortality) from cigarette smoking, little information is available on the specific causes of death in smokers.”

    All – 100% – of the information available on smoker’s mortality rates is statistical in nature. However, causes can not be determined from statistical analysis – causes must be determined through scientific observation and experimentation. So, we have a lot of statistical data on smoker’s mortality rates, but no scientific data to corroborate the statistical data. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??? Well, for anyone whose brain is functioning normally, it should tell them that as of right now, according to our best science, there is grounds for heavy suspicion that something is horribly wrong with the statistical data.

    “Indeed, because smoking can cause cancer in so many organs, 30% of all cancer deaths can be related to cigarette smoking.”

    WHAT??? WHAT??? WHAT??? Between 20%-25% of the population smokes. They’re saying that 70% of all cancers can not be related to smoking. So, that’s an increase of occurrence in smokers of between 5% and 10%. However, since 70% of cancers are not related to smoking, it’s safe to say that some cancers which occur in smokers are related to something other than smoking. This definitely drops the number to under 5%-10%. They don’t give a figure on this, but with all of the data available, the most responsible thing we can say is that of cancers occurring in smokers, between 0%-70% of them is occurring for some other reason than the smoking. So, what they’re telling you is that the increased rate of cancer in smokers over non-smokers is somewhere between 9.99999…%, and 1.5%.

    Anything under 2% is usually considered statistically insignificant in epidemiology. So, what they’re saying is, as far as they can be sure, the increased risk of contracting cancer from smoking might be so minute as to be statistically insignificant. Even on the absolute outside, an increase of 10% is not a health crisis by any stretch of the imagination. Even of you think it’s responsible to take the median number, that’s only 4.245% – just over 2% more than statistical insignificance.

    THIS IS WHAT YOU PROVIDED TO ARGUE YOUR CASE!!! You can’t be freakin’ serious! Can you not yet see how you’re being duped? They’re telling you, in their own words, right there for you to see: “We’re trying to deceive you!” They spend multiple pages proclaiming the hellish evils of smoking, and then say “Oh, and by the way, all of what we’re saying might be untrue.” Of course, they speak that last sentence in a manner in which it would be difficult for the average, and especially biased, reader to gather its true meaning.

    So if a person works with Radon gas every day of his life, you think it is irresponsible to let him know that evidence shows he has a higher chance of getting cancer? Even if the evidence is inconclusive, he would have a right to know there is a chance.

    Of course not! You seem to have a proclivity for inventing your own opposing arguments to argue against.

    I’m saying that if a person works with radon gas and contracts lung cancer, it’s disingenuous to tell that person they definitely contracted the cancer because of the gas, and had they never worked with radon gas, they’d absolutely be cancer free right now. Because, nobody on Earth knows whether or not that’s true. Nobody on Earth knows whether or not it was the radon gas that caused the cancer. You can have your suspicions, but proclaiming absolute fact based on suspicion is disingenuous and irresponsible. It’s a LIE.

    Look at Myanmar for an example. They wouldn’t even let outside world aid come in and help their typhoon ravaged cities. Do you think they are going to believe/listen to/support what other countries say about smoking?

    Yes. Of course they will. Because of their inability to conduct their own adequate research, they are left ignorant – which is the last thing they wish to seem as being to the populace. So, they adopt their stance based on what the rich guys are doing. They adopt their stance based on the commonality of opinion. The technical term for this sort of action is: “Covering your ass.” They just don’t admit that’s why they’re doing it.

    If they were to do otherwise, and then were called on their claims, they’d have nothing to fall back on other than an admittance of ignorance. Do you think such a regime would want to do that? They go along with world opinion and reduce the chance of their proclamations being scrutinized, thus revealing their ignorance and threatening their power structure (the only thing that’s really important to them.)

    If they don’t see it as threatening the power structure, they’ll play ball anywhere and everywhere they can with the rest of the world in order to avoid threats to the power structure. That’s how tyrannical regimes work.

    So even these people are discovering on their own that smoking is not good for you. Sure they have read the WHO reports and what not, but they have also realized the problems on their own.

    No they aren’t. They’re subject to the same biases as everyone else in this day and age of global economy and fascist coporatism.

    I mean, come on! Are you for real? They can’t even get a system in place to adequately feed their people. They didn’t even know how many people they had in the country to any accurate degree. Do you really think they have a medical research system in place sufficient enough to gather their own science regarding the health effects of smoking??? The freakin’ WHO – supported by a conglomerate of the richest countries in the world can’t even do that to a degree that shuts down debate within their own ranks without the need for the suppression of data.

    And, you think Myanmar is doing it? Get real! They’re parroting what they hear in order to keep the power structure running smoothly.

    wasn’t around during WWII so I can’t comment on exaclty what was running through peoples minds back then. But remember that it did leak, and the world did find out about it.

    Nobody outside of the Nazi controlled territories new anything about it, beyond rumour, until the Nazi regime fell. It took the most powerful allied war force ever assembled in human history, toppling of one of the most powerful governments on Earth to expose that conspiracy to the world.

    I can understand your position on the idea of smoking ‘causing’ cancer, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why you won’t accept the fact that there is something to all this. Smoking is not healthy no matter how you look at it,

    Obviously, because you don’t read… as here you go again completely misrepresenting my arguments. I’ve repeatedly stated that smoking is a health risk. If you smoke you’re accepting risks to your health that you would not be accepting if you didn’t smoke. That much is not debatable.

    However, the inherent risks are not nearly as sever as the current, common, public perception of them makes them out to be. But, smoking is a health risk. However, to say that “smoking causes cancer” is a lie that serves only to perpetuate the irrational hysteria surrounding this issue. Because, nobody on earth actually knows if smoking causes cancer or not. We know smoking is linked, in some way, to cancer. But, we have no reasonable grounds on which to base the claim that it is a cause of cancer. Smoking has been statistically linked to cancer in a corrolary capacity. It has NEVER been sicentifically linked to it in a casuative capacity.

    And, that hysteria that is being promoted by such untruths is currently stripping individuals of liberties, promoting fear and intolerance, crimes against children, and it’s killing people!

    and of all the preventable causes of death out there, smoking is the top

    What? No it isn’t. I’m sure that’s what you’ve been told, and accepted out of hand. But it’s simply a lie. The leading cause of death in the U.S., for instance, is iatrogenisis. It’s the number one killer of people every year, and it’s entirely preventable. It kills more people every year than all cancers, all heart conditions, smoking – anything else.

    Do you know what iatrogenisis is? It’s medical error. And, it’s the leading cause of death in the U.S., and either the leading, or close to the leading cause of death in most industrialized societies on the planet today.

    You never hear about it, because… well… who gathers and supplies the statistics which report mortality causes and rates?

    Oh, they don’t lie about it. They don’t neglect those figures. They supply them, openly and freely. But, they do so in a manner that’s deceiving to the lay viewer. They split apart the sub-causes within the heading of iatrogenisis, so that each sub-cause appears lower on the list.

    For instance, one year’s report might have at the top:

    #1 Cancer – X amount of deaths (this includes all cancers)
    #2 Heart disease – X amount of deaths (again, all diseases of the heart are included)

    then, we skip over a bunch, and maybe in the # 6 spot:

    #6 Adverse effects to prescription medication – X amount of deaths (only one iatrogenic effect.. skip again)
    #9 Mis-prescription of pharmaceuticals – X amount of deaths (skip again)
    #14 Death due to surgical procedure – X amount of deaths (only one iatrogenic effect.. and so on)

    The SAMMEC numbers on smoking related deaths, which we now know beyond doubt are made up practically out of thin air, tells us that about 400,000 people every year die in the U.S. due to smoking. In contrast, the amount of people who die every year due to all iatrogenic effects combined: 783,936

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

    Doctors are killing almost twice as many people every year as smoking is! But, they’re the group that you place your unquestioned faith in to tell you what is good for you and what isn’t?

    Ask your family doctor, don’t take my word for it. In Canada doctors are paid by the federal coffers. He isn’t paid, supported, or endorsed by the pharmaceutical companies.

    Oh please! Tell me something: Are you here visiting from Mars? Or, are you on a serious amount of mind-altring chemicals?

    Health Canada is the agency that doles out money to doctors. THEY HAVE AN OPEN AND STATED BIAS AGAINST SMOKING! Health Canada is an agency of the federal government, and the federal government, in today plutocratic society, is governed by the corporate lobby. OF COURSE your family doctor is paid, supported, AND endorsed by pharmaceutical companies. Your family docotor OWES HIS ENTIRE PROFESSION to pharmaceutical companies!

    Do you know how many prescription medications there are on the market? Do you know how many different ailments GPs are presented with each year of their practice? Do you not wonder how any human can have the capacity to know what and how much of each of the millions of pharmaceuticals – with all of the new ones coming out every day – to prescribe for each different ailment?

    I’ll let you in on a little secret: No human does have that capacity. So, how do doctors know what/how much to prescribe? THE DRUG COMPANIES TELL THEM! Your doctor doesn’t do any research into it – he trusts the drug companies completely to have done all of that for him. He CAN’T do that much research, he’d never have any time for his practice, and he’d need a huge team of research assistants.

    So, he receives packages from drug companies that say “When you get a patient that has this, give them our product. It’s safe and its good for that.” And, that’s the end of it. If you then go to see your GP with that ailment, he just prescribes what the drug company tells him to prescribe. And, yes, if you go back and tell him it didn’t work, he just switches over to a competing drug company’s product that also sent him a pamphlet and samples.

    And indirectly the federal government gets money from pharma-companies, but it also gets some from big-tobacco too, so I feel this is irrelevant).

    Yes, and haven’t they done a wonderful job of creating a state of irrational, hysterical fear that is resulting in smoking cessation products (some of which are now killing people) flying of the shelves, while at the same time making sure tobacco Inc., isn’t completely restricted form selling their product?

    And, by the way, comparing the money the Fed gets from big-pharma to the money it gets from Big-tobacco is ludicrous. Big-pharma is the highest revenue industry on the planet. Big-tobacco has all but gone the way of the dodo – there’s barely any such thing anymore.

  97. Hey! this is Bob from your child-abusers blog post! I seemed to notice that all of my comments are now moderated and not immediately going to post. Afraid of something?

    BTW, this is what I’ve been posting on all of your blogs.

    You wanted proof that cigarettes and smoking can cause cancer?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107326.php

    Or can harm a pregnant woman?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109463.php

    Or this one on two particular chemicals that are culprits in cigarettes:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109059.php

  98. You wanted proof that cigarettes and smoking can cause cancer?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107326.php

    Or can harm a pregnant woman?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109463.php

    Or this one on two particular chemicals that are culprits in cigarettes:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109059.php

  99. To no suprise, my last post (a good number of weeks ago now) never made it past your filters again. No idea why, but I couldn’t be bothered bringing it up again.

    I can see that you are really passionate about this, so I started asking myself why? Why would he be so uptight about this? I poked around the rest of your site (most of it anyway) and can clearly tell that you are a product of the Hippie generation. I can’t help but get the feeling that you would much rather still be living in 1972 where sex, drugs and rock & roll are the norm and are freely used/shared/shown everwhere.

    I believe that you probably couldn’t really care less about what people do or do not believe about smoking, instead you feel great fear and angst regarding the fact that groups of people are trying to infringe on your rights and freedoms. It seems to me that this is why you are so adamant about this and other issues. You feel that every nail in the coffin of cigarettes is one step closer to living in some sort of dictatorship.

    While the phrase “The path to hell is paved with good intentions” is usually true, it isn’t always the case. In the free society in which we live, we are all free to express ourselves in a manner in which we see fit – just so long as that mannerism is not destructive to anyone. You need to have rules and laws to follow in a free society in order to keep the society safe from coruption and collapse. Without these rules and laws, the society would be nothing more that pure chaos.
    Some of the laws that have been passed in Canada to help make and keep us safe have been things like:
    – Wearing your seatbelts while in a moving car. Seatbelts have saved thousands upon thousands of lives since the law came into effect. Is this a good thing? Are you upset that this takes away from your personal freedom to drive you car sans belt?
    – Motorcylce helmets. In some states like Florida you can ride your motorbike without a helmet, but up here in Canada you cannot. Why? Several reasons. One of them being that because we have a colder and wetter climate here than Florida, our roads are always in bad shape. It is a lot easier for a motorcycle to loose control after hitting a pothole or some other road hazard, and because we have a lot of those, a helmet is needed when driving a bike.
    – Certain narcotics are outlawed. Drugs like cocaine or meth are very powerful and dangerous drugs. Due to their potent addictive properties, they lead addicts to a life of crime and/or poverty as they deplete their life’s savings to get their next fix. Our government has decided that by making those drugs illegal it will help make them unaccessable for most people. To some degree this has worked, but everyone realizes it is not a perfect plan, and new people are getting hooked everyday. Does this mean that we should make them legal? Of course not. Is this taking away someones rights and freedoms? Yes. It is, but what would be the cost of not banning them? How many lives would be lost because of it?

    If everyone was free to do what ever they wanted, then murderes and rapists would be able to have a feild day. Is this something you think we should have in a free society? I’m guessing not.
    Cigarette smoke may or may not cause cancer, but by banning them in public venues, the government is making rules and laws for us to follow in order to help ensure the health and safety of its people. Just like the seatbelt, helmet, and drug laws do. Will they prevent everyone from getting cancer? No. But even if just a few people’s lives have been saved it was all worth it. Specially if one of those lives saved is that of your child or wife.

    If you really truely honstly believe that the government is banning smoking because big-pharma is strong arming them to do so and that the public’s health and safety has absolutly nothing to do with their decisions, then I do feel sorry for you. If this is indeed the case, then you have taken the word for freedom and changed it to mean something very sinister. Anarchy.

  100. Hi all!

    As a fresh myblog.ottawaarts.com user i just wanted to say hi to everyone else who uses this forum :D

  101. I will try to keep this at the layman level. I can go into deeper detail if desired.

    Cig. smoke contains a fair amount of free radicals, principally as bi-products from the NO to NO2 oxidation event that occurs when tar is burned. Free radicals are small, positively charged molecules that in turn oxidize other molecules that they come into contact with. In essence they will steal electron(s) from other molecules which destabilizes the molecule (breaks a bond, causes it to become positively charged, etc)

    Free radicals are small enough that they can pass through cell membranes and the nuclear envelope where they can react with the DNA there. Obviously most of the free radicals will not penetrate this deep, rather they will oxidize one of the billions of other molecules along the way. However, you are talking about billions of billions of free radicals over a smoker’s life time, some *will* penetrate deeply enough to react with the DNA.

    The oxidative reaction with cleaves a molecular bond in the DNA molecule. Your cellular machinery has an over-active and redundant repair mechanism in which these bonds are fixed in short order and no permanent damage is done to the DNA. However the system is not perfect and some damage may become permanent – a single site mutation.

    Depending on where this damage occurred, it may or may not be significant. Statistically, the mutation will most likely have hit in a non-coding region, so there will be no effect. In order for cancer to be a result, the mutation will have to hit a gene which plays a role in cell growth regulation, and will have to mutate it in such a way that uncontrolled cellular growth is the result (instead of cell death, which is the more likely result, if any).

    Typically what is seen is that there are two mutations before cancer is a result – the first mutation randomly hits a DNA repair gene, disabling it. Later (can be years later) a second mutation randomly hits a cell growth regulation gene. Being unable to repair the deficit, the cell begins to grow uncontrolled, i.e. cancer.

    So strictly speaking, no, smoking does not cause cancer. What smoking does is drastically increase your exposure to free radicals in a particularly permissive type of tissue (the entire purpose of lung tissue is to exchange molecules with the environment). Free radicals, when they hit just right, cause DNA damage. And if the DNA damage is in just the right area, it causes cancer.

  102. Copy/paste malfuction. Missed the following:

    “Smoking increases your exposure to elements that may eventually cause cancer” is a more accurate declaration. It could happen on your very first puff but it is very unlikely. It’s a game of Russian roulette, with a million-chamber revolver and 1 bullet. You probably won’t get killed, but the more often you pull the trigger the better chance you have at becoming dead.

  103. I dont believe smoking causes cancer, but only enhances the chances of getting cancer.

    im a smoker, so i couldnt care less. one thing for sure, after reading all the posts.. im not giving any arguments here, as i dont feel i need to. im just writing my own opinion in this post. i feel that anti-smokers shut up and dont smoke, whereas smokers go ahead and continue smoking.. as for derek, your so full of shit, so you SHUT THE FUCK UP! im a smoker but when i read your silly little arguments and comments to others i feel like i want to quit!

    its obvious that there are theories coming from both fucking ends on the causes of smoking. There will be no right or wrong.

    no point in arguing this factor. you might as well start arguing that marijuana should be legalized.

  104. * Lites up*

    This article is very interesting and very educational , I do believe you have a point. Every one who says that cancer is caused because of mutated cells is 100% correct.Can smoking aid in C.O.P.D certainly, but it does NOT CAUSE cancer. Smoking does damage mutated cells more so than a non smoker but it don’t cause it. Cancer runs in my family , because there’s a genetic gene that mutates the cells….However, my grandpa, papa , uncle and mom have all been smokers for any where from 20-50 years and they are all HEAVY smokers….Luckily none of them have cancer that we know of.

    Think about it….They say that smoking causes all kinds of cancer, not just lung. They say it causes cancer in pretty much any organ in the body because it damages the cells…….Ok.

    How is a new born baby born with cancer ? How is a person who has NEVER smoked a day in their life diagnosed with lung cancer. How is a person who has never drank an alcoholic drink their life diagnosed with kidney or liver cancer?

    April 2, 2009 I lost my ex boyfriend to Pancreatic Cancer , he literally found out he had cancer and was gone two months later. He was a VERY healthy man that ate his vegetables, fruits and exercised like crazy. He did not smoke at all , yet he still died of cancer. How do you explain that if SMOKING CAUSES CANCER? IT DON’T !

    Cancer is genetic, hereditary and caused by MUTATED CELLS…..You can be born with these mutated cells or they can mutate over the years from all kinds of reasons….Cancer can be caused or you can help aid the process of getting cancer by some of the following……..

    1. Drinking alcoholic beverages , Drinking CAFFEINE FREE beverages …Oh yeah…I went there.

    2. Sure smoking can help damage mutated cells further but it don’t cause it.

    3. Not eating properly

    4. Not exercising enough

    5. Breathing the air out side……Yeah I went there too.

    It is a proven fact that the dirt , pollen and toxins in the air are just as bad as inhaling ciggarette smoke….So are you going to quit breathing now ?

    What’s sad is people lecture people about smoking, but do you see people running around handing out face mask because the air is polluted ? Do you see people riding bikes to get to work because the fuels from cars get into your bronchial pipes when you INHALE AIR ?!?!? No I didn’t think so !

  105. People who say smoking causes cancer are the most ignorant and stubborn people on this planet. The (u.s) is built on tobacco. the first settlers that came here saw a big piece of land that had nothing but tobacco and corn fields. There is a gas station on every street light and each gas station has a lot of cigarettes in it. If smoking causes cancer than we would all be dead from smoke and secondhand smoke by now. but were not, why? because nicotine is a drug. Drugs are called drugs because once you start doing them you will want to do the m again and again. Doing drugs does not kill people, the stoppage of doing those drugs causes withdrawal which kills people(unless of course you overdose in the act). This is why potheads say marijuana and thc is the most harmless drug because when you stop smoking you go through a withdrawal that consists mainly of mental depression. Stimulants, depressants, and narcotics create physical and mental issues during your withdrawal. The moral of the story is that anti-smokers are the real cancer and your bs about all these ill effects blablbablbla are completely inaccurate and you should stop the propaganda because your actually killing more people than cigarette smoke does.

  106. Brandi -

    No, not quite.

    First, loosely stated, smoking is *a* cause of cancer. Not *the* cause, as your post seems to assume. Lots of things can cause cancer. Anything that can damage DNA can cause cancer.

    The act of smoking exposes your cells to oxidative molecules that cause mutations. As I said above, it depends on what type of damage and where that damage occurs in your DNA as to if and what type of cancer develops.

    Smoking does not always result in cancer. As I said, it’s a relatively small chance. Per exposure. The more and longer you smoke, the more you are exposing yourself to the oxidative molecules. The more you are exposed, the higher the chance of having your DNA mutated in such a way that cancer results. It’s not a guarantee but it is a dice roll, and for most people “snake eyes” eventually come up.

    Lung cancer is the obvious and first type of cancer to be caused by smoking. It’s the tissue that get the highest exposure to the oxidative molecules. However, once inside your body, those molecules can travel just about anywhere, which is why higher cancer rates for a variety of cancers is seen in the smoking population.

    On pre-disposition — you are right in that some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancer. This does not mean that people that are pre-disposed will necessarily end up with cancer, but it lowers the threshold on the average amount of exposure to mutation-causing events they’ll need to incur before cancer is a likely result.

    There is more than one kind of pre-disposition, but they usually involve involves some sort of germ-line (inheritable) mutation that either hinders DNA repair mechanisms OR promoters to cell growth. This means that it becomes easier and more likely that these tissues will mutate, some of which with the right type of mutation will turn cancerous.

    The opposite is also true, and it’s suspected that there are some people that have a pre-disposition to anti-cancer. This seems to involve people that have especially robust DNA repair genes – multiple copies of the repair genes that intercept and repair DNA damage before it becomes fixed.

  107. Russian guy -

    I don’t see how the early US cultivation of tobacco is relevant in any way. We were also built on slave labor, women as second-hand citizens, and strict puritan values. Doesn’t mean that all early practices were good ones.

    Second, again, smoking and cancer is not a 1-to-1 cause and effect relationship. It’s a numbers game. Chance and statistics. If you had a pair of normal six-sided dice, the chance of getting a pair of 1′s is 1/36. Developing cancer because of smoking is a similar exersize, except that it’s a pair of ten thousand sided dice – a one in a one hundred million chance. (this is just an example meant to illustrate the point, not exact numbers and chances).

    It’s a very small chance, I agree. However, that’s a dice roll PER exposure. So while the chance is there that you’ll do the right type of damage in the right place on your very first puff, it is very very unlikely. However, the more you smoke, the longer you smoke, the more exposure you’ll have and the greater the risk of doing that key damage and cancer resulting from it.

  108. Ouka-

    NO…..you can play dice all you want…but its not a numbers game at all. There is a lot more to lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema than just cigarette smoke. Not only is genetics a concern…but the age in which you were exposed to the toxic chemicals, lack of exercise, having a blue collar job your entire life and you’re overall health. All these useless anti-smoking campaign commercials target teenagers….WHY? because there is a reason you have to be 18 to buy a pack of cigarettes just like 21 for alcohol. That reason is that it is proven that your lungs are fully established and have a better immune system around the age of 18 than younger. Same thing with your liver only its around the age of 21 with alcohol. The problem i have is that mindless and stupid adults tend to see these commercials and spread the propaganda on the rest of society. or better yet they see these commercials and become completely ignorant, stubborn and dumb. The only thing i agree with when it comes to health risk and cigarette smoke is that it will complicate pregnancies…and that is logical because an unborn doesnt have much of an immune system.

    and american cultivation of tobacco is a big topic in this case because like i said earlier there is a gas station on every street light in the entire world….and if cigarettes are as bad as the uneducated people say they are than none of us should be alive today.

    Sugar and soda kill more people every year than cigarettes do…..they put that stuff in your food so i believe thats murder. LOL go buy a lighter and a pack of davidoffs and inhale smoke…exhale pacifism

  109. Russian guy

    Pardon? Do you even know what cancer is? Let me educate you: cancer is unchecked cellular growth and multiplication. It is a switch being thrown inside a cell that makes it start growing and dividing.

    This is caused by damage to the DNA of a single cell. Specific damage. Damage that knocks out a gene that controls cell growth or cell death.

    Before we go further, let me establish that I am a graduate of UC Davis’ Molecular Genetics program. Furthermore, I am currently in immunogenic cancer research. When I talk about how DNA damage occurs, I am speaking from a position of informed authority. What are your credentials?

    First, I don’t know what drinking has to do with the topic, but there is no scientific reason for the legal drinking and smoking ages. They are not based on anything substantive. I invite you to read up on the proponents on rational for the National Drinking Age Act of 1984. No where in that literature will you find reference to liver development. Instead you will find special interest groups, MADD, and other Prohibition-era holdovers. 21 is not a magic liver age. Assuming normal liver development and health, your liver is as capable of processing alcohol at 15 as it is at 21 as it is at 31. The *amount* of alcohol you are capable of handling changes, naturally, but that’s more of a function of body weight and tolerance than it is of liver health.

    As for the immune system, what do you imagine that it has to do with smoking exactly? I’d love to hear your “logic”.

    I am going to put this as simply as possible: the burning of tar (and other substances) in cigarettes releases free radicals (oxidative molecules). You inhale these free radicals when you take a drag on the cig.

    Free radicals are proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to cause DNA damage and subsequent mutation, both in vivo and in vitro (both in living systems and in test tube scenarios).

    The point is this — IF the damage results in a mutation, and if that mutation results uncontrolled cell growth, cancer is the result.

    It is ENTIRELY a numbers game.

    1. The chance that the free radicals make it through the lung lining, through the cell membranes, across the cellular matrix, across the nuclear membrane, and smacking into DNA.

    2. The chance that the free radical will damage the DNA in a location that will either impair DNA repair or enhance cell growth.

    3. The chance that this damage is not repaired before it becomes fixed.

    4. The chance that further mutational events or environmental factors induce uncontrolled cell growth.

    If you pass all checkpoints, you get cancer. Aside for the lung-specific notation in line 1, this is the same sort of pathway nearly all cancers follow.

    So yes, it is a numbers game. Smoking and cancer are not 1-to-1. But cancer can be an end result of smoking, for the reasons outlined above. It’s a low-odds number game, which is why you can smoke a cig and not start spout tumors. But it’s a high enough rate that if you do smoke regularly over a life time, you have greatly increased odds in incurring enough of the right types of damage for cancer to be the end result.

    And before you spout off further, let me add that I have induced cancer in vivo and in vitro in my lab. So, yes, I *do* know what I am talking about. I may not have worked with the oxidative molecules found in cig smoke myself personally, but I am well aware that a) the nitrous compounds released are both present and capable of redox reactions, b) are capable of passing through cell membranes, and c) are capable of inducing DNA damage.

  110. Ouka :

    I am going to put this as simply as possible: the burning of tar (and other substances) in cigarettes releases free radicals (oxidative molecules). You inhale these free radicals when you take a drag on the cig.

    Q1: Oxygen itself is rarely, if ever, found naturally without the presence of free radicals. Is it your professional opinion that the statement “breathing causes cancer” is a reasonable one? If so, what empirical evidence do you have that the cancer risks from the intake of free-radicals as a result of smoking is more severe than that of breathing – keeping in mind the relative exposure levels of each. I.e. – I inhale oxygen twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. I only spend a little under two hours each day inhaling cigarette smoke. So, would it then reasonable to say that, as far as we know for sure, the likelihood of tobacco smoke being a causative agent for cancer may be less than, equal to, or greater than the likelihood of plain old air being a causative agent for cancer? And, if that is a reasonable statement, why would anybody in their right mind pay any attention whatsoever to the statement “smoking causes cancer”?

    Q2: If I were able, should I do away with any and all free radical intake to my system? Keeping your credentials in mind, I’ll ask you: Do you think that would be good for my white blood cells, and my immune system in general?

    My point is: by pointing the finger at free-radicals as a “cause” of cancer, you move the discussion into an area of absurdity where practically EVERYTHING must then be considered as a cause of cancer, and the statement “smoking causes cancer” then becomes entirely meaningless anyway. I.e. – If you want me concede the argument on your terms, then, by force of logic, we both must also agree that it’s pretty ridiculous to single out tobacco smoke as anything to get riled up about in any way. Let’s say for a minute that tobacco smoke does cause cancer, SOMETIMES, in SOME people, due to free radical damage. So what? So does breathing, cooking food, driving your car, cleaning your house, etc., etc., And, we haven’t solved anything, we’ve just moved the question to: What empirical evidence is there that free-radical damage from smoking is significantly greater than the damage from any number of other things that are considered relatively benign?

    The point is this — IF the damage results in a mutation, and if that mutation results uncontrolled cell growth, cancer is the result.

    And, I submit that you have no idea, beyond supposition, if free radical damage due to smoking has ever caused cancer in one single person throughout the entire span of human history. Where’s your empirically tested subject pool that showed cancer due to free radical damage as a result of inhaling tobacco smoke? You don’t have any – never mind a reasonable subject pool – you don’t have a single case. Because, it would be impossible to isolate tobacco smoke free-rads from any number of other sources. Theoretically, it can occur. But, we’ve never seen it. Whenever a smoker gets cancer there’s no way of telling if it was free-rads that were associated with tobacco smoke that was responsible, or any one of the myriad of other sources the person was exposed to throughout their lives. So, the best you have is a guess. But, Health Canada, for example, still claims in absolute terms: Smoking CAUSES cancer. A person with any respectable level of ability at critical thought should be able to see that that statement is just as true and just as false as the statement: “Breathing CAUSES cancer.” Wouldn’t you agree? It’s entirely disingenuous – because they KNOW that’s not how the average person interprets that statement. It’s hyperbole – dishonest hyperbole.

    So, the REAL point is this — IF a meteorite falls out of the sky, and IF I’m standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, severe head trauma is the result. So, I assume you’d agree that meteorites CAUSE severe head trauma. …ever heard of anyone dying as a result of receiving severe head trauma from a meteorite impact? The statement may be technically true, but that doesn’t mean it’s significant or useful in any way.

    let me add that I have induced cancer in vivo and in vitro in my lab

    How many times have you, or anyone you know of, induced it by exposing test subjects to levels of tobacco smoke on par with the regular intake of a human smoker? Let me guess… zero?

    Electro-magnetic radiation CAUSES cancer… but I can sit in front of my monitor for two hours a day for the rest of my life, and the odds are ridiculously minuscule that I will get cancer in my face from it. But, I AM receiving EMR exposure from it. The point is, there is a ridiculously infantile notion among many people that the “smoking is bad mmm’kay” question is a black or white issue. It’s not. There’s a ridiculous notion among anti-smoking loons that if tobacco smoke, under any circumstances, can be shown to pose a health risk of any magnitude whatsoever, it is then justifiable to label it as the most malevolent force mankind has ever come into contact with. But, it’s not a black or white issue. It’s not enough to show that smoking CAN cause cancer, in SOME people, SOME of the time, under SOME circumstances. It’s not enough to merely show that the potential is there. You have to show that the risk is substantial. Almost everything CAN cause some sort of detrimental health effect in SOME people SOME of the time under SOME circumstance. So what?

    Cooking my food is causing free-rad damage. Am I going to become a raw foodist? Nope. If I get cancer at some time in the future it could have conceivably been caused by a single chicken breast I B-B-Qed back in 1998. Or, it could have been from a cigarette I smoked two years ago. I’m not going to stop smoking — just like I’m not going to stop eating chicken.

    The point is, it’s ridiculous to say “Smoking causes cancer” because of free-rads. If you accept that statement, then you have to accept the statement “air causes cancer”, or “Ovens cause cancer.” Maybe they do, in some round about way. But, by accepting it, you’ve just diluted the meaning of the statement to a point of ludicrousness, and the statement “smoking causes cancer” is now a largely meaningless one.

    I can say “Meteorites CAUSE head trauma” and it’s technically true. But, so what? So does practically everything else that has a hard surface and a little bit of speed or weight to it. So, if I go around yelling and screaming that people need to wear titanium helmets when they go outside, and trying to get laws passed that forced people to wear such helmets, because “meteorites CAUSE head trauma” I’d be, at best, crazy, and at worst, dishonest. Because, yeah, technically meteorites CAN CAUSE head trauma, but for the most part, meteorites DON’T CAUSE head trauma.

    I may not have worked with the oxidative molecules found in cig smoke myself personally, but I am well aware that a) the nitrous compounds released are both present and capable of redox reactions, b) are capable of passing through cell membranes, and c) are capable of inducing DNA damage.

    Practically every single thing I’ve ever come into contact with in my life carried with it the potential to kill me. It’s not enough to say “maybe-perhaps-sort-of-almost.” Go out and expose test subjects to levels of tobacco smoke inhalation comparable to regular human smoking levels, isolate all potential confounders to a reasonable degree, execute this study double, or triple blind, and induce cancer in a significant amount of the test subjects, then have it independently replicated — then we’ll talk. Until then, I’m sorry, but, practically speaking, you really have nothing beyond supposition.

  111. jose:

    im not giving any arguments here, as i dont feel i need to.

    Translation: I have no argument to make. But, I don’t want to people to know that. So, I’ll pretend I do and just can’t be bothered in making one.

    as for derek, your so full of shit, so you SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    If I’m so full of shit, it should prove an easy task to point out exactly where and how I’m full of shit. I’ll be waiting for your submission. Until then, you stand as nothing more than a brain-dead little toad.

    im a smoker but when i read your silly little arguments and comments to others i feel like i want to quit!

    If my arguments are silly, again, it should be an easy task to tear them apart and point out their flaws. And, again, I’ll be waiting for your submission. And, until it comes, you’ll stand as a moronic, ineffectual, addle-minded little rodent.

    no point in arguing this factor. you might as well start arguing that marijuana should be legalized.

    Marijuana SHOULD be legalized, you bile-for-brains, mung-headed fecal-stain.

  112. “Q1: Oxygen itself is rarely, if ever, found naturally without the presence of free radicals.“

    A free charged oxygen molecule is not the only form of oxidant. Predominant oxidative species in cigarette smoke are hydroxyl and nitric oxide, though there are many, many others. Are you disputing that strong oxidants are products in cigarette smoke? I would also point out that there are dozens of known carcinogenic compounds found in cigarette smoke, I’m only speaking on species I’m most familiar with.

    “Is it your professional opinion that the statement “breathing causes cancer” is a reasonable one?… etc etc”

    No, that is not a reasonable series of statements at all. Yes you are exposed to oxidants on a daily basis, what differs is concentration, reactivity, and absorption of the free radicals is cig smoke as compared to those that are found in the ambient atmosphere. Unless you have your mouth strapped around the exhaust pipe of a automobile, your exposure levels to highly reactive and absorbable oxidants from cigarette smoke is many times greater than that of those found in your ambient atmospheric.

    “Q2… Do you think that would be good for my white blood cells, and my immune system in general?”

    Of course not, your body produces and utilizes free radicals. That is not to say that uncontrolled exposure to environmental oxidative agents is a good idea. It’s all about form and concentration. Your body utilizes chlorine: every cell in your body must utilize it in order for trans-membrane transport to occur. It would still be a decidedly bad idea to take shot of the stuff.

    Oxidative species utilized by your body are done in very small, very directed pathways where the oxidative molecules are bound to substrates that also facilitate bonding with their intended targets. In general they aren’t left to freely roam your body and they definitely aren’t left to roam around within the nuclear envelope.

    “My point is: by pointing the finger at free-radicals as a “cause” of cancer, you move the discussion into an area of absurdity where practically EVERYTHING must then be considered as a cause of cancer”

    That not an absurd statement, that was my point. Anything that can cause DNA damage can cause cancer. Cigarette smoke is one such origin of a cause. So is UV light from the sun. So are viruses that invade your nuclei. The reasonable question becomes, “at what level of exposure is cancer a likely result?” For smoking, the answer appears to be “prolonged and frequent use significantly increases the chance”.

    “And, I submit that you have no idea, beyond supposition, if free radical damage due to smoking has ever caused cancer in one single person throughout the entire span of human history. Where’s your empirically tested subject pool that showed cancer due to free radical damage as a result of inhaling tobacco smoke? You don’t have any – never mind a reasonable subject pool – you don’t have a single case. Because, it would be impossible to isolate tobacco smoke free-rads from any number of other sources. Theoretically, it can occur. But, we’ve never seen it. Whenever a smoker gets cancer there’s no way of telling if it was free-rads that were associated with tobacco smoke that was responsible, or any one of the myriad of other sources the person was exposed to throughout their lives. So, the best you have is a guess.”

    This is a pretty asinine argument. Of course you can’t follow around free radicals with little mini molecular cameras and record where, when, how, and what they each impact and what damage they cause, if any. It is such a leap of the imagination to draw the conclusion that smoking can cause cancer if

    A) oxidative agents found in cigarette smoke have been shown to be able to cross tissue and cellular barriers and invade the nucleus of cells. Both in living systems and in vitro experiments

    B) oxidative agents in general, including oxidative agents in cigarette smoke, are known to cause DNA damage

    C) DNA damage may cause mutation

    D) Mutation may result in cancer

    These are each individually provable and proven statements. Therefore the concluding statement, that smoking can cause cancer, is valid.

    I would agree with you that the blanket absolute: “smoking causes cancer” is a gross over-simplification of the issue. However, unlike you, I understand its use. The most accurate statement is indeed “smoking may cause cancer” but the layman confuses this statement with “we, the scientific and health community, think that smoking may cause cancer, but we aren’t really sure” with what the statement actually means: “we, the scientific and health community, know that agents found within cigarette smoke are known carcinogenic agents. Whether you induce cancer from smoking these specific cigarettes or not is a total crap shoot. Good luck and we hope you don’t roll snake eyes.”

    “How many times have you, or anyone you know of, induced it by exposing test subjects to levels of tobacco smoke on par with the regular intake of a human smoker? Let me guess… zero?”

    Maybe because human testing on such a level is illegal? However the result has been seen in vitro (tissue samples in a lab) and in animal models. Why would you assume that cancer can’t be a result in humans if it can be both induced in human tissues and in living animal models?

    “Electro-magnetic radiation CAUSES cancer… but I can sit in front of my monitor for two hours a day for the rest of my life, and the odds are ridiculously minuscule that I will get cancer in my face from it.”

    No, certain types of electro-magnetic radiation can induce cancer. The stuff you get from your monitor is not of the right spectrum or energy for cancer to be a possible result. Neither the visible light emitted from your monitor, nor the EMF field from the electricity, are forms of ionizing radiation. No ionization, no oxidation. No oxidation, no DNA damage.

    A better example would have been exposure to x-rays. X-rays are a form of ionizing radiation and as such are capable of inducing cancer. If it were the FDA warning (or your Canadian equivalent) the statement on the x-ray machine would read “X-rays cause cancer.”

    Under your argument, you could claim that tens of millions of people are exposed to x-rays every year. Nearly every member of western civilization has had repeat exposures to x-rays. You could use your exact argument and say that x-rays don’t cause cancer, because if they did, anyone that every had an x-ray would have cancer. Since the masses aren’t collapsing from x-ray-induced cancer, x-rays must then not cause cancer.

    And just like the warning on cigarette packs, both you and the x-ray warning would be technically correct. X-rays *may* cause cancer, and repeat exposure greatly increases the chance that cancer may be the end result. The likelihood that any individual exposure induces cancer is small, vanishingly so. So small that there are even doctors and dentists that have not developed cancer even after routinely stayed in the room with their patients while administering x-rays (before it became common practice for them to leave the room). But enough of those docs and dentists did, and enough repeat-exposure patients did, that x-ray exposure became a recognized risk factor, and preventative measures and protocols were developed to limit both patient and care-giver exposure.

    “It’s not enough to show that smoking CAN cause cancer, in SOME people, SOME of the time, under SOME circumstances.”
    Yes, yes it is. Because while smoking is not a common thread to all lung cancers, it’s a disproportionally high factor: 15-25% of lung cancer victims never smoked. 75-85% do. That’s far beyond just a small, inconsequential correlative factor.”

    Of course not every smoker is going to develop lung cancer, it’s a numbers game not a guarantee, and ongoing research suggests that the percentage of smokers that develop lung cancer is anywhere from 8 to 25%. Even at the low end threshold of 8%, that’s far beyond the basal lung cancer rate in the general non-smoking population.

    (note: These stats are the low and median values reported throughout a variety of recent research, health, government statistical reports on lung cancer. European, American, and Canadian sources. I did discount the high end values as alarmist.)

    Between the average of those numbers, you can reasonably say that about 20% (15+25 / 2) of the 16.5% (8 + 25 / 2) of smokers that developed lung cancer would have otherwise developed cancer anyway. That still means that the 13% of smokers developed lung cancer that would not otherwise have been victims of the disease.

    As further evidence that smoking is tied to lung cancer, the types of lung cancers found in non-smokers are typically morphologically and genetically different than the cancers and mutations found in smokers. If smoking could not induce lung cancer, then there would not be identifiable classes of tumor types associated with smokers.

    Everything in life is a numbers game. Odds and statistics. A meteorite blow to the head would be fatal, but the chances are vanishingly small that you will get hit by one. Doesn’t make you any less dead if it does hit you. The question becomes, what are the chances of an event happening and how undesirable are the effects if it does?

    Meteorite to the head? Fatal but less than 1 in 5 quadrillion per meteorite. Not gonna worry about it. Chances of developing cancer as a result of smoking? Not necessarily fatal but apparently about 1 in 10. High enough for me not to want to do it, especially coupled with the other afflictions that are also percentagly associated with the practice with a lack of any redeeming quality (for me at least, to each their own).

    In America, if 10 million people take a drug, eat a food, take a supplement, etc, and 5 die from adverse side affects, it’s enough to recall the product. I do find it a tad odd that 1 in 2 million is enough for people to chuck their “tainted” medication out and sue the bejezzus out of a drug company, but many of these same people are smokers and are good with 1 in 10 odds. But that’s America for you.

  113. “No, that is not a reasonable series of statements at all.”

    You’ve just contradicted yourself then. Your argument was that since free-rads induce cell damage, which may result in cancer, the statement “smoking causes cancer” is therefore truthful. Logically, you must then agree that the statement “X causes cancer” must also be truthful providing humans consume “X”, and “X” contains free-rads. You appear to now be moving the goal-posts and saying that the statement “X causes cancer” is only true in certain instances depending on exposure levels and other criteria — which was not your original argument. So, you’ve now moved the argument from: exposure to free rads = possibility of resulting cancer, and Inhaling tobacco smoke exposes one to free-rads, ergo “smoking causes cancer.” To an argument about exposure levels and types of exposure. So, do you wish to abandon your argument of free-rads = cancer causation, and attempt to argue exposure levels, etc.? Or, are you sticking with your original argument?

    “That not an absurd statement, that was my point. Anything that can cause DNA damage can cause cancer. Cigarette smoke is one such origin of a cause. So is UV light from the sun. So are viruses that invade your nuclei.”

    It is absurd. Your point is taken. What I take issue with is that to agree with your point moves the statement “smoking causes cancer” to being meaningless and absurd. I’m currently typing on a mostly plastic keyboard. By your argument, it’s reasonable to say “computer keyboards cause cancer” because I can conceive of it accidentally being incinerated in some way, at some time, and exposing some human to all sorts of carcinogens which might result in that person developing cancer. I.e. – the statement “computer keyboards cause cancer”, on your terms, is technically true. However, pragmatically, it’s an absurd statement to make because it’s entirely misleading.

    “These are each individually provable and proven statements. Therefore the concluding statement, that smoking can cause cancer, is valid.”

    I’d say that even the statement “smoking can cause cancer” is shakey, although certainly much better than “smoking causes cancer.” I think the most reasonable statement to make would be “smoking may cause cancer.” Which, of course, is very, very, very different than saying “smoking causes cancer.”

    “I would agree with you that the blanket absolute: “smoking causes cancer” is a gross over-simplification of the issue. However, unlike you, I understand its use.”

    No. You understand your interpretation of its use. Just as I understand my interpretation of it. Unless you explicity communicate it’s intended use to me, it’s “use” exists nowhere in the universe except in the mind of the speaker. Unlike you, I understand the concept of subjective perception.

    “The most accurate statement is indeed “smoking may cause cancer”

    We’re in agreement!

    “but the layman confuses this statement with “we, the scientific and health community, think that smoking may cause cancer, but we aren’t really sure””

    WHICH IS THE DAMNED TRUTH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! YOU AREN’T REALLY SURE! Unless, of course, the scientific and health community became infallible, and science stopped being provisional while I was sleeping or something. And, this has been my beef from day one: You know you’re not sure. Your current best science may suggest it — may even strongly suggest it. But, you’re not sure. And, the anti-smoker lunk-heads within the scientific and health community don’t want people to know the truth. If you said “smoking may cause cancer” and the average laymen interpreted that to mean that you think it causes cancer, but you’re not sure — THEY’D BE INTERPRETING IT CORRECTLY! So, what’s the problem with telling them, and/or them knowing the truth? I suppose uncertainty doesn’t really help to push the agenda all that much though, does it?

    “Why would you assume that cancer can’t be a result in humans if it can be both induced in human tissues and in living animal models?”

    Perhaps because supposition isn’t scientific? Are you claiming that all confounders are equal in testing models between a complete, living organism and a tissue sample? Please! It’s suggestive. That’s it. A tissue sample is not the same thing as a complete, functioning, living organism. To view a result in one and then claim the same result would necessarily occur in the other requires an unscientific leap of faith. You don’t know what mechanisms might be functioning in the complete organism, but are not present in the tissue sample, that might negate the same result in the tissue sample, now do you? It’s suggestive, and without assumption on your part it’s nothing more than that.

    But, it’s false to say that I assume cancer CAN’T be a result in humans. I assume no such thing. My argument is that until you show it does (which is different than showing it COULD), it’s dishonest to say that it does. Have you shown that it does result? NO! Do you go ahead and say it does anyway? Yes! Where is there anything honest in that?

    As for animals, I’ve seen no such studies that were reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you could cite one? I’m not saying they don’t exist — just that I’m unaware of any. The only animal studies I’ve seen that were successful in inducing cancer involved exposing the animals to ridiculous levels of tobacco smoke — exposure levels that no human ever experiences. I can subject any animal to ridiculous levels of just about anything and induce some sort of severely adverse physiological change. That doesn’t mean I’d be honest if I went around saying “X causes Y” — because I subjected a rat to ridiculous amounts of X and it developed Y. “Hey! I force fed these rats 14 gallons of water a day and they all died of hypnotremia! That’s it! Water CAUSES hypnotremia!” Well, yeah… it does… in very rare cases and under very special circumstances. But, so what? Without qualifying my “water causes” statement, I’d either be being purposefully or recklessly dishonest.

    “The stuff you get from your monitor is not of the right spectrum or energy for cancer to be a possible result. Neither the visible light emitted from your monitor, nor the EMF field from the electricity, are forms of ionizing radiation. No ionization, no oxidation. No oxidation, no DNA damage.”

    Huh, really? That’s not the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. They found that exposure to EMF fields “could possibly” increase the risk of developing lukemia. According to your argument isn’t “could possibly” the same thing as “CAUSES”?

    Studies from the The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health found elevated cancer risks in every profession it looked at where workers experienced elevated exposure to EMF fields – risk was highest among among electricians, telephone linesmen, and electric power workers. I guess some jobs “cause” cancer. — http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/

    “A better example would have been exposure to x-rays. X-rays are a form of ionizing radiation and as such are capable of inducing cancer. If it were the FDA warning (or your Canadian equivalent) the statement on the x-ray machine would read “X-rays cause cancer.””

    Bull. I can’t speak about the FDA, but practically every health warning I’ve seen from Health Canada that isn’t about tobacco smoke states something to the effect of “has been scientifically linked to”, or “is thought to cause”.

    “can contribute… to skin cancer.” Very different than “causes skin cancer”:
    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/

    “Under your argument, you could claim that tens of millions of people are exposed to x-rays every year. Nearly every member of western civilization has had repeat exposures to x-rays. You could use your exact argument and say that x-rays don’t cause cancer, because if they did, anyone that every had an x-ray would have cancer.”

    Except that that’s not my argument at all. It’s a complete misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is that it is intellectually irresponsible for a perceived scientific or health authority to use the absolute term “smoking causes cancer,” when nobody can categorically state whether it actually does or not in any single case. And ESPECIALLY when in the vast majority of cases we know beyond any doubt whatsoever that it absolutely doesn’t cause cancer.

    Look it’s very simple: Do the majority of smokers get cancer from smoking? The answer is no, as the majority of smokers don’t ever get cancer at all. Do we know that any smoker has ever gotten cancer with tobacco smoke being the article of causation? NO. We’ve got enough evidence to make us pretty darned sure — but still shy of certainty — that there is a correlation between smoking and elevated risk of developing cancer. And, we might have our suspicions about causation. But we don’t know. Now, with all of that in mind, is it would it be more truthful to say “Smoking causes cancer.” Or, “smoking may cause cancer”? If the latter is the more truthful, then how is it not dishonest to state the former?

    We pretty well know there is a correlation between smoking and an elevated risk for cancer. But we don’t know it causes cancer. We suspect it. We don’t know. So, until we know it causes cancer, it’s not ok to say it does. Especially when WE KNOW that the norm is that it absolutely doesn’t!

    Smoking absolutely DOES NOT CAUSE cancer almost all of the time. That’s an entirely true statement. Would we ever see that as a warning label on a pack of cigs? No. But, we see the scientifically shaky, and grossly open to misinterpretation (as you’ve stated) statement that reads: “smoking causes cancer.” Why?

    “ongoing research suggests that the percentage of smokers that develop lung cancer is anywhere from 8 to 25%. Even at the low end threshold of 8%, that’s far beyond the basal lung cancer rate in the general non-smoking population.”

    8% is the generally accepted number — that’s the WHO’s number. Studies I’ve seen that put it much higher are shaky. The non-smoking rate, according to the same source is about 1%. So… 7% increase over non-smokers — if you had to bet your house on one: causation, or correlation without direct causation — which would you choose based only on those numbers alone? Just curious. Hell… 24% increase, same question.

    “I did discount the high end values as alarmist.”

    25% is an alarmist, high-end value — so is 20%.

    “the types of lung cancers found in non-smokers are typically morphologically and genetically different than the cancers and mutations found in smokers. If smoking could not induce lung cancer, then there would not be identifiable classes of tumor types associated with smokers.”

    Again, BULL! There aren’t any types of cancer that occur exclusively in smokers. If there there were, then you’d have a solid case for causation. But, there isn’t. There are types of cancer that occur much more frequently in smokers. That proves correlation, not causation. 100% of cases of surfer’s myelopathy occur in people who surf. They vast majority of them walk from the beach to the water carrying a surf board in order to begin surfing. Very few non-surfers do this. So, walking from the beach from the water with a surf-board causes surfer’s myelopathy? Of course that’s ludicrous. There’s a definite correlation — if they didn’t walk from the beach to the water they couldn’t surf, and thus would never get surfer’s myelopathy. But the act of walking to the water is not what’s causing the myelopathy. We still don’t know, beyond speculation, if elevated cases of cancer occurring in humans who smoke is acting in the same way as walking from the beach to the water is acting in surfer’s who suffer surfer’s myelopathy, or if there is a direct causation going on. You have your suppositions — they might even be well informed suppositions, but, they’re still suppositions. And, it’s just not scientific to say “Smoking causes cancer” under those circumstances.

    Besides that, there’s all sorts of real-world observational data that argues against lung-cancer/smoking causation. Places in the world with very high smoking rates have lower rates of lung cancer than places with much lower smoking rates. The Japanese have the highest life expectancies on earth, lung cancer rates are about half what they are in the U.S., they spend much less on health-care, and they smoke more than any other nation on earth except for the Greek. Lung Cancers among the Greeks are dramatically lower than in N.A. as well, even though they have the highest smoking rate on the planet. Here in Canada lung cancer is rare among aboriginal people. It’s about half of what it is among people of European descent, But, the smoking rate is about twice what it is among people of European descent.

    Along with that, cancer rates are also seen to increase in places where smoking rates decline. After WWII, the smoking rate among British males in their 20s was very close to 100% Do you remember hearing about any catastrophic lung cancer outbreaks among seniors in Britain in the 1980s that wiped out the male population? I sure don’t.

    But, you seem to be attempting a straw-man here. I don’t know if it’s by design or error on your part. I’ve never said that smoking and lung cancer aren’t linked. I said causation has never been shown. And, if causation has never been shown, it’s irresponsible to use the term “smoking causes cancer.”

    “A meteorite blow to the head would be fatal, but the chances are vanishingly small that you will get hit by one. Doesn’t make you any less dead if it does hit you. The question becomes, what are the chances of an event happening and how undesirable are the effects if it does?”

    But, that’s not the topic at hand. That exchange had nothing to do with relative odds. You appear to be trying to divert the argument, and I won’t let you evade this point:

    You said ” IF the damage results in a mutation, and if that mutation results uncontrolled cell growth, cancer is the result.”

    Ergo: Because of this, “smoking causes cancer” is a reasonable statement.

    I responded: “IF a meteorite falls out of the sky, and IF I’m standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, severe head trauma is the result. So, I assume you’d agree that meteorites CAUSE severe head trauma.”

    Do you agree that, in accordance with your quote above, the statement “meteorites CAUSE severe head trauma” is just as true as the statment “smoking causes cancer”? Neither statement carries any information about the relative risks involved. So, at face value, would you, or would you not agree that both statements are equally useless? Why not?

    “Chances of developing cancer as a result of smoking? Not necessarily fatal but apparently about 1 in 10. High enough for me not to want to do it”

    1 in 10??? Doll’s benchmark study (the study where I’m sure you got your 25% number from earlier) found that it was less than 1.6 in 1000! As opposed to 0.07 in 1000 for non-smokers. Do the math there! Even if your outside high of 25% is correct, according to the findings of the study that produced that number, my chance, as a smoker, of NOT ever getting lung cancer is pretty damned close to 100%. According to the study that came in just a hair under your upper limit before you’d discarded it as “alarmist” data, the average smoker has a 99.84% that he or she will never contract lung cancer. You do know that lung cancer is a very rare disease, don’t you? Hell! The health-care industry kills many, many more people every year than lung-cancer does.

    So, you don’t want to smoke because of the risks? That’s fine. But, you don’t have the slightest worry of dying from, say, some iatrogenic cause? The NCI estimates that lung cancer will kill about 160,000 Americans this year — most of them NON-SMOKERS! The conservative estimates for death due to iatrogenic causes approach double that number!

    1 in 10… yeah, scary… especially when you consider that the great majority of each of those 1 in 10 will live into their 70s, and more than 17% will make it past the age of 85. Some will make it to their 90s, and a few will even surpass 100 years old…. huh… kind of sounds a little like what non-smokers can expect… odd that.

    But, here’s something really scary: If you add up all causes of death, your chances of dying from something is 1 in 1!!

    Meaningless statistics my friend. Statistics mean nothing in the absence of perspective. 84.6742% of them are just made up out of thin air. And, “anti-smokers CAUSE statistics.”

  114. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how causes of cancer are determined. With rare exception, all cancer causes are correlative rather than direct. Cancer is not like an infectious disease where you can incubate a pathogen and perform an identification. It doesn’t typically trigger an immune response so you can’t draw blood and take an antibody titer. It’s not like a poison where you can perform molecular identifications.

    Cancer’s very nature is random. It’s impossible to predict which, or if, exposure to known carcinogenic agents will produce cancer as a result. Furthermore the transition is never immediate – it takes time before a cell that’s gone malignant to grow and divide into a mass that is detectable.

    Short of injecting already malignant cells into immuno-suppressed tissues or organisms, or performing targeted gene mutations, there is no way to reliably induce *any* sort of cancer. All we can do is determine what agents are carcinogenic – which is different from the toxicity that you mention. Anything in high enough quantities is toxic. Most things are not carcinogenic. To be carcinogenic, the substance must be capable of damaging DNA in very specific ways, and in practical terms must do it without killing the cell. i.e. some heavy metals can induce cell rupturing. This, as a by-product, damages the DNA present. But that is a different sort of DNA damage than a mutational event from a carcinogenic agent.

    I can expose a hundred people to strong UV, maybe none of the develop skin cancer. That doesn’t mean that UV is not a known cause of skin cancer. Or X-rays. Or the carcinogens in your cigarettes.

    This is why your demands for a direct 1-to-1 relationship between a test group of humans getting cancer from controlled, single exposure to cigarette smoke are ludicrous. You are mistakenly treating cancer as if it were an infectious disease or a poison.

    Cancer correlations are two-fold. One is an over-exposure of a suspected carcinogenic agent to determine if it contains mutagenic properties. The second is following normal exposure rates in populations to determine if there is a higher incident rate in the population exposed to the agent than not. Without both correlations you can’t say that the agent is a known cause of the type of cancer you are studying.

    ~5 dozen substances found in cigarette smoke are known carcinogens, proven by both tissue culture and living animals studies. I suggest that if you have not been able to find human-equivalent animal MCS exposure studies then perhaps you are confusing secondhand smoke, primary exposure, and lifetime exposure studies.

    Good animal studies (and I don’t claim that they all are) will break down the ppm, mg/m^3, ug/m^3, or blood concentration rates and weight them the human-equivalent exposure for whatever the activity the study is investigating.

    For lifetime exposure studies in particular (probably the ones you reference in which animals are exposed to infeasibly high concentrations of smoke) keep in mind this is where carcinogen studies differ from toxicity studies: you can have a lifetime of exposure to very small amounts of a toxin and not die whereas if you took a lifetime’s exposure all at once you would keel over.

    This is because toxins kill cells or otherwise disrupt biologic pathways. In small doses your body has time to repair the small amounts of damage being incurred from the small, repeated exposures. Mutagenic damage is not repairable. Once the damage occurs it becomes a permanent part of the individual cell’s DNA. Because of this, repeated lifetime damages can be simulated in short-duration, high concentration exposure studies.

    As for population statistics: American lung cancer rates amongst smokers are 3 orders of magnitude higher in smokers vs non-smokers. In the world of cancer research, that’s a *very* strong correlation.

    Moving along, you are also incorrect about the types and causes of lung cancers in smokers vs non-smokers. The predominant genetic cause of lung cancers in non-smokers are EGFR loci mutations whereas in smokers this mutation is absent. Instead TP53 pathway mutations are the common genetic cause in smokers, with this mutation being absent in non-smokers.

    Also, the rate of G-T trasnsversion mutations in smokers is nearly 3 times more than in non-smokers, which makes sense when you consider G-T transversion mutations are caused predominantly by oxidative damage, the very sort of DNA damage that the oxidants in cigarette smoke would cause. Furthermore, oxidated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (specifically benzoapyrene metabolites) found in cigarette smoke have been shown to cause the same DNA damage in the same codon regions in vitro as is found in smoker tumor biopsies.

    If that were not enough, there are distinct physical and morphological differences between smoker vs non-smoker carcinomas. Squamous cell carcinomas are the pre-dominant tumor type in smokers and adenocarcinoma are the most common tumor type in non-smokers.

    Now to address specific lines from your post:

    “So, do you wish to abandon your argument of free-rads = cancer causation, and attempt to argue exposure levels, etc.? Or, are you sticking with your original argument?”

    The arguments are the same, it’s not a contradiction. You are drawing shades of grey when none exist. The collision of DNA and carcinogenic compounds results in DNA damage. No ifs, ands, or buts. Cancer may be a result of that damage. The more damage you incur the more likely it is that the damage incurred will result in cancer. Would you prefer that the cigarette pack warning label read “Warning: Smoking causes mutations” instead? As a health warning I really don’t see a functional difference between the two, since the only type of somatic cell mutation to worry about are the ones that turn cancerous.

    “the statement “computer keyboards cause cancer”, on your terms, is technically true”

    Only if you inhale it. I don’t believe inhaling burning keyboards is considered a common use of the product. Inhaling a burning cigarette is. While some warning labels are indeed hilarious in the product activities they warn against you know as well as I that anything used in the right way can be harmful or deadly, and warning against every conceivable use would be an exercise in futility. Warning labels should, and by-and-large do, warn against potential outcomes of reasonable mis-use of a product, or known side effects under intended use. Cancer as a result of smoking is a significant percentile possibility.

    “You know you’re not sure. Your current best science may suggest it — may even strongly suggest it. But, you’re not sure.”

    You are again incorrect. I am absolutely sure that the compounds in cigarette smoke are entirely capable of causing cancer. I am also sure that there is no magical barrier in your lungs that precludes you from incurring DNA damage from these compounds. The only thing I can’t predict is whether or not you will get cancer. The question is not whether or not smoking can cause cancer, the question is whether or not it will at the individual level.

    “A tissue sample is not the same thing as a complete, functioning, living organism.”

    Again, wrong. If we were talking about an infectious disease or poisoning you would be correct. But a living sample of human lung tissue in a petri dish is no different than a living sample of human lung tissue in a living human when it comes to studying DNA damage. There are no DNA repair mechanisms external to the cell. If a carcinogen is capable of inducing DNA damage and cancer in human lung tissue, it is capable of causing the same damage in a living system.

    “Re: animal studies”

    See above. Toxicity & physiological changes =/= mutagenic capacity. Your understanding of the mechanisms involved is flawed.

    “They found that exposure to EMF fields “could possibly” increase the risk of developing lukemia.”

    Your link did not work. I would like to see your link to this John Hopkins study. I have searched for it and the only thing I come up with is commentary by a couple of John Hopkins researches on other peoples research. If this is the same article, I would point out that computer monitor EMF is a different species entirely than the strong EMFs up close around a power line. Visible light is EM radiation. So are x-rays. One of them can cause DNA damage, the other can’t.

    I’d also point out that there are some major criticisms on the methodology of a variety of Swedish studies (the originators of the EMF scare) that found the original correlations between EMF and leukemia.

    For EMF exposure from computer monitors a brief review of the literature is pretty crushing that there is no correlation. The ones that tout a correlation? Taking study quotes waaaay out of context (attributing strong EMF field exposure symptoms to household appliances) , trying to sell you a magical protection field, referencing a Feng Shui “expert” on how EMF is bad for you, or are referencing symptoms that would more logically be associated with sitting on your ass for 6 hours watching a TV, not being caused by EMF from the TV itself.

    “Smoking causes cancer.” Or, “smoking may cause cancer”? If the latter is the more truthful, then how is it not dishonest to state the former?”

    Because, again, there is a risk of misinterpretation of the second statement.

    “Smoking may cause cancer because you will incur DNA damage from smoking and if you are unlucky that damage will cause cancer”

    Is different from

    “Smoking may cause cancer, but we don’t have any strong evidence to support the idea, hence the ‘may’.”

    Look, as intelligent as you seem to be I submit to you that the general population is not. A large part of the population (down here at least) has a problem accepting the Theory of Evolution because it has the word “Theory” in it (though it is entertaining to then argue Cell Theory with them) . In my experience, if you don’t speak in absolutes to the general public they will grasp onto it as a perceived uncertainty and claim that you have no evidence and all you have are ideas without supporting evidence. Which is certainly not the case with smoking (or evolution).

    “8% is the generally accepted number — that’s the WHO’s number. Studies I’ve seen that put it much higher are shaky. The non-smoking rate, according to the same source is about 1%. So… 7% increase over non-smokers”

    Bad math. There are approximately 170,000 new cases of lung cancer annually in America. 10% of those are non-smokers. So 17,000 non-smokers and 153,000 smokers get lung cancer every year. There are an estimated 43 million smokers in America. There are 304 million people in America which means there are 261 million non-smokers.

    This means that annually 0.356% of the smoker population and 0.00651% of the general population develop lung cancer. That’s not a 7% increase in likelihood, that’s a 3 orders of magnitude increase in likelihood. I would also point out to you that perhaps you misinterpreted my previous stats – the 10% figure is lifetime chances, not chances per year. You can’t compare the two directly.

    “Neither statement carries any information about the relative risks involved. So, at face value, would you, or would you not agree that both statements are equally useless? Why not?”

    Because you’ve set up a false dichotomy. DNA damage is an inherent property of a carcinogen. Head trauma is not an inherent property of a meteorite. The two aren’t equal statements.

    “The NCI estimates that lung cancer will kill about 160,000 Americans this year — most of them NON-SMOKERS!”

    I think you better go read your source again. There are 170,000+ new cases of lung cancer per year and 160,000 deaths due to lung cancer a year. 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers. These are the NCI numbers. All things being equal that means 90% of those 160,000 deaths are smokers. All things are not quite equal though, because non-smoker lung cancers respond better to current treatments than smokers (this may have to do with the fact that many non-smoker lung cancers are due to specific mutations and are thus more targetable by treatments). Therefore with a higher survivability amongst non-smokers, smoker lung cancer deaths are >90%.

  115. One more thing on the numbers. I said:

    “This means that annually 0.356% of the smoker population and 0.00651% of the general population develop lung cancer.”

    Remember that is 0.356% anually. I beleive the ~10% lifetime chance of a smoker developing cancer comes from assuming the the smoker indeeds smokes for a lifetime. It would take 30 years of smoking to compound you percentile chance to 10%.

    However, 0.356% is also the annual average across all smokers of all ages in all stages of their smoking career. Young smokers have a much lower annual rate. Long term smokers have a significantly higher annual rate. Which is where I suspect that the higher percentile stats for cancer rates amongst smokers come from. i.e. smoke for 30 years, 10% rate of cancer. Smoke for 60 years and you have a 20% rate. Or more, I’d expect that the scale isn’t linear.

  116. After a long search through all the “waste of space” blogs, I finally find yours and am happy! Thanks for the informative read, and I look forward to more!

  117. wow! I can’t believe some of the things i’m reading. You’re all a bunch of flat-earthers.

    ….
    “smoking does not cause cancer!”

    I keep reading this again and again. Ok so let’s try to argue this a little bit and fold in some insults along the way. After all, what’s a good internet rant without some insults?

    Yes it is true that smoking does not produce a 100% probability of immediately having cancer….in much the same way that jumping off the worlds tallest building doesn’t produce a 100% probability of dying upon impact.
    I could very well argue that the only thing that happens upon impact is that an extremely large force acts upon the molecules in your body. Then, if by some miracle, all the resulting molecular accelerations are in exactly the same direction for enough time (i.e. your body is not torn apart by the impact) then, voila! you’re absolutely fine. problem solved – jumping off a building does not CAUSE death. Now all you MORONS here claiming that smoking does not CAUSE cancer – go jump off a building…have a cigarette on the way down while you’re at it.

    so let’s get back to the statement. Yes it’s true that in the most literal translation – smoking does not CAUSE cancer with 100% probability.
    If i smoke a cigarette today, I won’t get cancer. If I smoke 1 cigarette per month for the rest of my life – i still (probably) won’t get cancer

    HOWEVER, (and this is where you should read carefully), if i regularly smoke several cigarettes every day for a prolonged period of time (say 10 years), I significantly (and or time EXPONENTIALLY) increase the PROBABILITY of having cancer.

    Everything in life is probabilities. The chemicals in cigarettes damage the DNA in your cells (as does UV radiation). Damaged DNA produces random mutations. This happens naturally all the time. Your body is good at locating and destroying these mutated cells. However, by MASSIVELY increasing the frequency, nature and density of mutated cells (these chemicals produce highly localised mutations in the lungs, throat etc) the probability that mutated cells are not destroyed by your body also increases. Hence, smoking increases the probability that you get cancer.

  118. Sorry, but your analogy is wrong. please allow me to correct you. The analogy should be this-

    You could eliminate alcohol and there would be no more drunk driving accidents ever. there would still be accidents, and there would still be accidents caused by drivers who smoked pot or took drugs, but clearly alcohol causes drunk driving accidents and eliminating alcohol will stop all drunk driving accidents.
    eliminating tobacco will end all tobacco-related incidences of cancer and heart disease but people will still get cancer and heart disease from poor diets and exposure to other carcinogens.

    analogies can be dangerous in the wrong hands

  119. Another way to look at it is like this-

    I had an uncle who used to stop at the bar on the way home from work every day and have 3, 4, sometimes 5 beers. Technically he was guilty of driving drunk at least five days a week for his entire adult life, but he was never involved in an accident or pulled over by the police.

    My other uncle never had a drop of alcohol but at age 38 died in an automobile accident.

    So if I follow your logic, I would know that driving drunk is not dangerous because I know someone who did it for years and never had a problem and I also know someone who never did it and died from it.

    By the way, if you took away all the automobiles, there would be no more automobile accidents caused by drunk driving, but there would still be accidents involving intoxicated people falling down stairs, overdosing on alcohol, falling off of roofs, etc.

    I support smoker’s right to smoke but I don’t want to be exposed to it myself so I’m glad it is banned in most public places. My parents smoked and there was nothing worse than riding in the car with them in the winter winter with the windows rolled up. I think people who do that should be ashamed. Fat people and smokers make my health insurance really expensive too!

  120. Hi Derek,

    Wow great blog. Free minded thinking at its best. As a non smoker I did find it hard to agree with your original statement at first. But with your sound logical arguments back up with references time and time again I give in. Like the young child told that Santa doesn’t exist, its hurts but we get over.

    Just off the subject, sorry being lazy and not searching your site and posting in the correct area. What are you thoughts on the ipcc email leak?

  121. All of you smokers in denial are fools to the heart. *Think* Your inhalling something that is burning whe your smoking. Why wouldn’t it cause cancer. I have smoked for over 10 years since the age of 13. Been free of it for a year now and never felt better. Yes at first it was tough and I had several health problems as a result, but anything you stop doing that you have been doing excessively will cause some type of problems regardless of genetics. Come on people lets do better!
    As for Mr. Derek you seem to be the biggest smoking loser I have ever encountered. Good luck. and remember some people (at least 10% of the world is immune to cancer) common sense. If there was a rare disease or virus to suddenly break out 10% of the population would survive…. idiots you are you smokers…. your not gauranteed to be in that 10% so why take the chance.

    God Bless you all! Thanks for this exciting yet b*ll sh*t to get through another boring day with you imbiciles.

    P.S. – Congrats to the Russian Guy!!!!!

  122. hi derek id like to say i believe ur opinion but i am 25 i have been smoking since the 8th or 9th grade and i have recently in the last 1 or 2 years smoking a pack a day well i quit then started then quit and so on but i am a very stressed person smoking helps me cope and they say it will cause lung cancer and i know im stupid i have asthma and i do it but everyone has there reasons for doing stupid things so yeagh i do get out of breath and i wheeze but i dont think it means i have lung cancer but now because of stupid people always blaming smoking i always get paranoide of smoking how long does it take to get lung cancer for someone and im not sure what to beleieve im honestly talking i would really love to believe that smoking is only 8 percent chance but im also worried p.s i know i didnt use punctuations but im at work and im trying to type as fast as i can while things are fresh in my mind

  123. Hi Derek,

    Wow great blog. Free minded thinkinf at its best. As a non xmoker I did find it hard to agree with your original statement at first. But with your sound logical arguments back up with references time and time again I give in. Like the young child told that Santa doesn’t exist, its hurts but we get over.

    Just off the subject, sorry being lazy and not searching your site and posting in thd correct area. What are you thoughts on the ipcc email leak?;

  124. Hey peeps, marijuana cures cancer. Look it up .. or here’s a video …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFigAQIPn40

    and also see this web page in the defense of smoking by a lawyer

    http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

    Not very many people are intelligent and open minded enough to see this propaganda.

    They did the same thing with marijuana and are now saying the contrary. Proof that nothing is the absolute truth.

    Actually, smokers are more protected against cancer then non smokers if you look deep down into the stats and research made.

    Also, studies would always show no link between lung cancer and smoking.. and now they are showing the contrary. Does that not question you?

    Well it sure does make me curious to get to the bottom of this.

    Human beings have smoked for the longest time. Do you not think it’s because it has a function? Think about it.

  125. Er…cigarette smoke contains at least 80 different substances which do, in fact, cause a whole range of cancers. These chemicals damage DNA and change important genes, making your cells grow and multiply out of control. This is now well-established and based on decades of rubust research. Half of all smokers will die as a direct result of their habit.

    What’s probably happened (judging by your hysterical invective about “propaganda” and “brainwashing” by the anti-smoking lobby) is that you’ve been fooled by industry-funded, erm, propaganda and brainwashing.

    Big Tobacco pumped millions of dollars into a network of front groups, which then broadcast a snow storm of disinformation about smoking to the world’s media. And you’re dutifully regurgitating it.

    Many of the same organizations are now involved in manufacturing uncertainty about climate change – using the same tried-and-tested tactics. If you really want to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are all involved in a giant global conspiracy to squelch your freedoms, I suppose that’s your business.

    Did you know that there are aliens in Area 51, and the moon landing was a fake? Oh yeah!

    Your tin foil hat is in the post.

  126. “Er…cigarette smoke contains at least 80 different substances which do, in fact, cause a whole range of cancers.”

    Er… Citation please. Proclamation doesn’t fly on my blog. And, I’d like to see a paper that documents an in-vivo study of the mechanism at work.

    Half of all smokers will die as a direct result of their habit.

    And again, citation please.

    If you really want to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are all involved in a giant global conspiracy to squelch your freedoms, I suppose that’s your business.

    Ah! I see you’re an idiot. Considering that you, at least at one time, must have believed that masturbation would make you go blind, that homosexuality is a disease, that marijuana use turns people into rapists, that illness is cause by ill-humors that can be cured by drilling holes in the skull that allow them to escape, or by draining people of multiple quarts of blood, et al. You DID believe all of that stuff, didn’t you? I mean, you’re not crazy enough to think that all of the experts in the world could be involved in some sort of massive conspiracy, are you? Wonderful! This should be fun then.

    As to the rest of your desperate and irrelevant drivel, I’ll ignore it for now. Now, put up or shut-up.

  127. Why, oh why, oh why, do people insist on posting idiocy like the article above without actually putting forth a modicum of effort and actually digesting it themselves first?

    What does the good doctor point out as being the “smoking gun” showing a causative link between cigarette smoke and cancer? benzo (a) pyrene!

    That’s right! benzo (a) pyrene! …a substance only produced EACH AND EVERY TIME EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL KNOWN TO HUMAN KIND UNDERGOES THE PROCESS OF COMBUSTION!

    STOP with this nonsensical drivel already! If B(a)P is a “smoking gun” for cancer causation, then it’s safe to say: A) cooking food CAUSES cancer. B) Having a bonfire CAUSES cancer. C) BBQs CAUSE cancer. D) Motor-vehicles CAUSE cancer. etc., etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE THINGS CREATE more CFM of B(a)P THAN THE HEAVIEST SMOKERS ON THE PLANET DO!

    So, Walker, remember that the next time you’re frying up a steak, or starting your car, or stepping onto a bus, or taking part in anything else which includes the burning of any sort of organic material – YOU ARE CAUSING CANCER!!!! YOU ARE A CANCER CAUSER, Walker! The article that YOU endorse says so! So, what are you going to do about that, Walker? Hmmmm? What are YOU going to do about all of the cancer you’ve CAUSED and are yet to CAUSE? I want to know!

    And, here’s a tip: Don’t just read an article, decide that it agrees with your point of view, and begin throwing it around. THAT’S THE FREAKIN’ PROBLEM! Nobody can friggen’ think for themselves anymore, dammit! Instead, they co-opt someone else’s opinion — entirely without any significant scrutiny — merely because it fits well with their own sensibilities (which were formed in an equally effortless way) Then they proceed to just glom onto, and tout as gospel, anything they happen to hear, or see in print, that contains conclusions that agree with their point of view.

    I’ll bet my bottom dollar that’s what you did, huh? You read fairly quickly through the article and saw “smoking gun”, “cigarettes cause cancer”, “written by a Doctor!” and thought you’d post it. Because, even though you didn’t put forth any effort to actually try and figure out whether it held any weight or not, you figured a Doctor MUST know what he’s talking about! I’ll bet my house that you didn’t even bother to invest 30 seconds to actually find out what benzo (a) pyrene is, did you?

    Employ a little critical thinking, for Pete’s sake! Read the article and put a little effort into actually digesting what it’s telling you.

  128. Oh, and, P.S. – The American Cancer Society released this year’s official cancer estimates this week. And, guess what! Surprise of surprises: the rate of lung cancer infections has, yet again, INCREASED! I wonder how the good Doctor explains THAT one! Especially after he said, and I quote: “Clearly, the best way to avoid cancer is not to smoke.”

    Yes! Decades of smoking bans, price increases, ubiquitous propaganda, and a plummeting smoking rate, and lung cancer rates continue to increase steadily! But, still, “CLEARLY” the “BEST” way to avoid cancer is not to smoke! Even though, in the real world, for as far back as we can see, less and less people have been smoking, and more and more people have been getting lung cancer! Amazing!

    C’mon! That’s the very definition of idiocy! I hate to break it to you, but it looks like your article writing Doctor friend is a bit of a loon.

  129. Wouldn’t you agree though that if people stopped stopped smoking this would lower the overall cancer victim rate?

  130. Causality doesn’t exist; correlations do. Smoking does not cause cancer the same way that (to use something similar to your example) drink driving doesn’t cause death. There is, however a positive correlation between lung cancer and smoking (i.e. it appears that if you smoke you are MORE LIKELY to get cancer), the same way as if you drink and drive you are more likely to have an accident.

    Cancer is a multifactorial disease, so you require a whole bunch of things to go wrong in order to get it. Cigarette’s contain mutagens, so by smoking you are increasing the likelyhood that you will get mutations in your DNA and your ‘anti-cancer system’ will fail. So whilst you are technically correct (as you more aless mention in your concluding paragraph) it really isn’t much of a victory, because the correlation between cancer and smoking is still very hight.

    As apart of my studies at university I had to read a journal article that was about associating genes to smoking behaviours. It isn’t exactly on the topic you’re talking about but there are some statistics in there that are pretty interesting. I’ll try dig it up but I’ve forgotton it’s title, so I’ll try and keep you posted.

  131. Oh and by the way Derek, combustion isn’t going to cause cancer even though B(a)P is produced. Why? Because it’s all about concentration. It is a lot more concentrated in cigarettes, hence why the “good doctor” said it is a smoking gun.

  132. Breathing the fumes released from your car is much worse so you better stop driving because it will kill you. LMAO

    People are so dumb. They freak out when they walk by someone holding a cigarette but then can stand right in the middle of traffic with no problem at all.

    Lung Cancer raters increased like crazy when diesel was introduced, but that research was shadowed by the anti-smoking campaigns who had something else in mind, there own interests as usual. Do you really think they would spend so much money because they are concerned about our health? LMAO Yeah right.. and my name is Bart Simpson

    All their radiation bombs combined with pollution is what’s killing most.

  133. Yes Peachy, breathing the fumes is a lot worst but very few people actually breath in the fumes in a high enough dosage to do severe damage. I think the key thing that a lot of people are missing (particularly when the grab survey-based studies) is that cancer is a multifactorial disease. There are so many thins that contribute to cancer, such as viruses, transposable genetic elements, mutations etc. Cigarettes contain mutagens (such as the previously mentioned B(a)P) in relatively high concentrations. This can (not necessarily will) cause damage to the DNA and result in the failure of tumor suppressor genes, exposure of oncogenes etc. – on a side note if you want to get an idea of how a substance can be determined as mutagenic or not look up the Ames test, it’s pretty simple to understand.

    I guess the main point of this is that even if smoking rates decrease there is still the possibility that lung cancer rates will increase, as a whole bunch of factors can and do contribute towards it. Of course there can be beneficial aspects of smoking, the same way there can be some beneficial aspects of having a viral or bacterial infection, but there are key questions:
    Do the good outweigh the bad?
    At what dosage is the good occurring?
    What is the net overall affect on the individual?
    It would appear that these questions (or similar, more complicates ones) have been answered by several scientific teams.

    I am also interested as to why you think this is such a big conspiracy? I mean I imagine that the banning of smoking from any country would be damaging to the economy and certainly the political party that abolished it – human greed for power and money should mean cigarettes will remain in society. Furthermore, if cigarettes are as harmful as portrayed the big pharmaceutical companies would desire to keep people smoking so they could continue to reel in the cash on cancer treatment.

    I’d like to finish up by adding in that I’m by no means an ‘anti-smoking’ extremist, nor do I smoke. I lie somewhere in the middle, I don’t particularly like smoking but I don’t despise smokers at all. I’m an upcoming scientist whose interest was tweaked by this debate.

  134. LOL I love how you watch the anti smoking commercials on television. And right after that commercial they have a commercial about the taco bell healthy diet menu. LOLOLOL it just shows how strong a tool marketing is to use against the uneducated. People are so gullible to believe others yet they never have proof of anything.

    here’s a research done on lung cancer rates among japanese men and american men. American men are 6 to 10 times more likely to get lung cancer than are japanese men.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11700268

    How is it that japanese men are less likely to get lung cancer than American men when half of all japanese men smoke cigs. This 6 year study alone shows you that there is alot more to lung cancer than just smoking cigarettes. A persons lifestyle has alot to do with it along with genetics. Oh and by the way obesity in America is higher than any other country in the world. Lets continue watching the mcdonalds, burger king, wendys, taco bell,….Coca cola. Oh and lets not start with all the addicts i see at starbucks everyday. people wanna buy a 5 dollar cup of coffee with 20 tbs of sugar in it….and then they complain about how unhealthy cigarettes are.

  135. Derek, you are right! Smoking does not cause cancer.

    Your reason behind that statement is wrong and actually quite ridiculous just as ridiculous as the story about drinking and driving.

    At the same time though you are right. I also have been explaining this for years, but nobody wants to hear this truth. It’s easier to blame everything on smoking right?

    Anyway your guess is right. I just wish you knew your reason a bit more so you could back up what you are saying.

    Anyway, thanks for a least shaking things up a bit.

    SMOKING HAS NEVER CAUSED CANCER NOR NEVER WILL……. FACT….. GET USED TO IT PEOPLE….. USE CRITICAL THINKING….BUT YOU CAN’T, CAN YOU?

    KK

  136. Ummm… KK, You appear to be somewhat confused. I never gave a reason for why smoking doesn’t cause cancer. I gave a reason for why the popular rationalization for why it does is in error. Those two things are not the same. I have no idea why smoking doesn’t cause cancer. I only know that there is no evidence, beyond statistical data showing correlation (which, of course, is in no way evidence for causation), to say that it does.

  137. Ah, honestly I cannot believe anyone would even answer this Derek’s blog.!!

    Derek’s reasoning is at best high on rhetorical writing and absolutely no reasoning.

    He is so so confused. He called that guy immunezone confused, but he is the only one living in confusion and or is just trying to impress someone, maybe himself.

    Dorkek, I mean Derek seriously, write something with substance, take up a class or something, I don’t know but you are saying absolutely nothing.

    Smoking does cause cancer or doesn’t, YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING, but the fact that you are living in serious denial like Laura said, and serious confusion like immunezone said.

    What a shmuck.

  138. Man, are you a psycho, telling Laura she has no worth? She is not intelligent?

    But wait let me guess, YOU ARE!! Degrading someone like that makes you intelligent?

    How sad Dorky Derek!! You pitiful dictionary using impressionist.

    You have a bad and lonely life don’t you? You are all alone and you pick on or at least try to pick on others to feel better don’t you?

    You are the saddest excuse for a human being I have ever seen dorky.

    You go away, and take you “little man complex” with you!! Nobody on the web is interested in people like you.

    How does it feel to be so “little”? Nothing but a little man you are…… you defend you position with offensive remarks?

    What a loser.

  139. “Ah, honestly I cannot believe anyone would even answer this Derek’s blog.!!”

    But, you did. TWICE!

    “Dorkek, I mean Derek seriously, write something with substance, take up a class or something, I don’t know but you are saying absolutely nothing.”

    “Dorkek”? Really? What are you, ten years old? I’m sorry, but, after that it’s impossible to take you seriously. You’re obviously either a child, or you’re suffering from some sort of impairment that renders you as the intellectual equivalent to one. Either way, you’re pointless, irrelevant and a waste of my time.

  140. …you literally said nothing in this blog… you compared smoking to drunk driving by saying that cars do not cause people to drive drunk, which is in no way relatable to smoking and cancer.

    Smoking will not 100 percent of the time cause cancer but it is a huge contributory factor to the spread and development of cancer.

    “Smoking is one of many risk factors associated with the onset of cancer.”

    you sure? cancer causes people to smoke? i think you mean cancer is one of the many risk factors associated with smoking.

  141. “…you literally said nothing in this blog… you compared smoking to drunk driving by saying that cars do not cause people to drive drunk, which is in no way relatable to smoking and cancer.”

    Yeah. It’s called an “analogy.” You do know the definition of the word “analogy”, don’t you? …I’m going to go way out on a limb here and wager a guess that your understanding of the word “analogy” is at least as good as your understanding of the definitions of the words “literally” and “factor.”

    you sure? cancer causes people to smoke? i think you mean cancer is one of the many risk factors associated with smoking.

    I didn’t mean that at all. I meant exactly what I originally wrote:

    “fac·tor - [fak-ter] – noun. – one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation: Poverty is only one of the factors in crime.”
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factor?o=100074

    You get that? “One of the elements contributing to a particular result” What is the result? Why, it’s cancer, isn’t it? What is one of the elements that may contribute to the result of cancer? Could it be smoking? Why, yes! Yes, it could! Therefore, smoking is a risk factor that may lead to the result of cancer. Is it the only risk factor? Why, no! No, it isn’t. There are many. So, “smoking is one of many risk factors associated with the onset of cancer.” Hmmm… seems like a perfectly accurate statement to me.

    How does that old Mark Twain quote go? Something like: Better to stay silent and look a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. …wise words. I suggest you remember them the next time you feel the urge to comment on my blog.

  142. Is this guy or girl “Derek” a dork??

    What a schmuck! Smoking does not cause cancer

    my ass!!! Derek is a smoker straight blog!!

  143. Hello again “Blog Master”. Now you’ve responded to the blog that you honestly can’t believe anyone would even answer, THREE times! Wow. That’s really kind of pathetic.

  144. Ah! No! Wait! I’ve just checked the logs. It appears that both “Derek the Dork” and “Blog Master” are both sock-puppets for “KK”, so it’s actually FOUR times that you, yourself, have answered the blog that you can’t believe anyone would ever answer! Sad, sad, sad.

    So, what? Your delicate sensibilities were bruised when I said you were confused regarding what I had said in my original post, so you decided to pose as other people and hurl empty, pointless, insults? Wow! You must be a person of impeccable character! My GOD man! I hope you’re no older than a teenager! Because, if you’re not, you’re making one hell of a fool out of yourself.

    You do realize, kk – in all seriousness – that you display the maturity, and intellectual ability, of a ten year old, don’t you?

  145. Actually, it does. The causal link between tobacco smoking and pulmonary carcinoma has recently been proven.

    Nitrosamines in tobacco smoke shut off the p34 gene, which restricts cell division in the lung. Not everyone gets it, because some people are affected more than others, but it is a causal link of tobacco smoke.

    Trust me, the addiction is all in your head. Once you quit (I am a former smoker), you’ll wonder why you ever started.

  146. Derek says that automobiles don’t cause drunk driving. He is right. Drivers cause drunk driving. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer, smokers cause cancer. There have been 13 of us hat got around together since high school in the same town. 7 of us smoked and 6 of us didn’t. Six of the smokers got cancer of the lung. I was diagnosed 3 months ago and I will be the 7th. I have smoked for 35 years and thought it would never happen to me. I am now 7 out of 7. A year ago I would have agreed with you but not anymore. The six that didn’t smoke are well……………what else can I say.

  147. It took me over an hour to come reading all the way. I know a person who we jokingly call the steam engine. I have never once since 30yrs seen the fellow without a cigarette between his lips. A lighted one ofcourse & him puffing away. One ends & he lights another right from it. He’s still alive. A friends dad quit smoking & passed away from cancer after 2 years. The doctors claimed he developed cancer after quitting. Another friend’s grandfather having been a chain smoker since god knows when died a few years after quitting. I, myself am a smoker. Though I’ve cut down but, I agree smoking isn’t going to kill me. Death will but not a cigarette. *flips open Zippo & lights a cigarette*

  148. In psychology, we call this cognitive dissonance.

    The fact is, smoking is unhealthy. No matter how technical you want to get with the idea that “smoking does not cause cancer”, you cannot deny the fact that smoking is increase the risk of cancer developing in the tissue. You don’t have to go to the extreme and say “so, everyone who has smoked a cigarette has cancer?” Of course not! Just like alcohol MAY cause liver disease, smoking MAY cause lung disease. And the possibility of getting a disease increases with the level of usage.

    My Mom died of lung cancer when she was 63. She smoked since she was 12. She lived a fairly long life, but was very unhealthy throughout it. She had sleep apnea, weak immune system, lost her sense of smell, among other things.

    Although, the whole “having the specific cancer gene that can be triggered by smoking” is a very elaborate defense mechanism. I guess I will keep smoking marijuana because it does not cause memory loss, it only increases the risk of forgetting things. Wait, what was I just talking about? (sound of a lighter flicking)

  149. 8============D

    Smoke that bitch!

  150. If you’ve got a little brain power and are going to read any post then read this one, for it is pure unbiased fact.

    Smoking does not cause cancer, instead it increases your risk of developing cancer. Much like standing in the middle of a road increases your chances of being hit by a motor vehicle. Standing (smoking) doesn’t kill you, being hit by a motor vehicle (cancer) may.

    So the question you need to ask yourself is this: Do you want to stand on the road with your smoking, or do you want to use the footpath with the non-smokers? Either way you could be hit, but on average one is far more likely than the other.

    Also, for the sake of neutrality I must point out that using a metaphor is not a scientific proof no matter how intuitive it sounds. It is only useful in explaining concepts and that is what I have done above, i.e. explain the concept of smoking being a risk factor for cancer. The actual chances of you dying from standing on the road or from smoking are not directly comparable, and I don’t intend to compare. I suggest you do your own research, on the smoking at least. :-P

  151. Smoking cigarettes raises your chances of dying from lung cancer by about 20% for men and 10% for women, not by 7% as previously stated by Derek, and also raises your risk of dying for a myriad of other diseases by similar amounts.

    “The risk of dying from lung cancer before age 85 is 22.1% for a male smoker and 11.9% for a female smoker, in the absence of competing causes of death. The corresponding estimates for lifelong nonsmokers are a 1.1% probability of dying from lung cancer before age 85 for a man of European descent, and a 0.8% probability for a woman.”

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050185

    I think its pretty disingenuous when Derek original stated that “Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer” and then stating “Smoking is one of many risk factors for cancer, but it does not cause cancer. If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does, then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.”

    And then launching into a ridiculous polemic about how “cars cause drunk driving.” It sees to me like he was trying to get people to keep smoking and get more people to start, by arguing that the health risks of smoking are nonexistant or trivial, instead of refuting the technically untrue, but figuarative true statement that “Smoking causes cancer”. If he had done the latter, his statements would have been completly different I think.

    Also I think may untrue statements have been made by the pro-smoking advocates on this blog that amount to junk science, like that there are just as much carcinogens in cooked meat as there are cigarettes, this is completly untrue.

    “Cooking food at high temperatures, for example grilling or barbecuing meats, can lead to the formation of minute quantities of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke (i.e., benzo[a]pyrene).[5] Charring of food resembles coking and tobacco pyrolysis, and produces similar carcinogens. There are several carcinogenic pyrolysis products, such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which are converted by human enzymes into epoxides, which attach permanently to DNA. Pre-cooking meats in a microwave oven for 2–3 minutes before grilling shortens the time on the hot pan, and removes heterocyclic amine (HCA) precursors, which can help minimize the formation of these carcinogens.”

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats

    Also, stating anecdotes like “My granfather smoked his entire life and he lived to be 93 and never got cancer. Cigarettes obviously don’t cause cancer. ” don’t prove anything, thats like me saying “My friend got in a bunch of car accidents, and he never wore seatbelts, and he lived through all of them. Seatbelts obviously don’t help save lives.” The truth comes out when you compile all the mathematical data and you see that smoking raises your risk for getting certain cancers and diseases significantly, and wearing a seatbelt in a car significatly increases your chances for survival in car accident.

    The reason why smoking in public places is banned because empirical evidence has shown that second hand smoke has almost the same affects on health as first hand smoke, i.e. raising chances of disease. And I don’t and many other people don’t believe that you have the right to negativly affect someone elses health just because it is convient for you or it makes you feel good. The same reason you can’t dump toxic waste in an aquifer that people drink out of, or burn massive amounts of waste that pollutes the air that people breathe for miles around, etc.

    I don’t know if Derek was actually tryng to correct a falsehood, which he seems to be doing in the last paragraph of his original post, and if he was he should be commended for it, but it seems to me that he and the other pro smokers who posted on this blog over the years seem more intrested in arguing that “all anti-smokers have been brainwashed by the propoganda of the New World Order health estabishment, and all evidence points to the the fact that the health risks of cigarette smoking are negligible at best, and in reality, smoking actualy improves your health and quality of life.” If they really do believe that, I would say they are completly wrong, and would urge them to consider the empirical evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions, and not resort to ad hominem attacks on non-smokers or anti-smokers. Thank you.

  152. Automobiles do cause drunk driving. If we agree that “driving” necessarily involves an “automobile,” that is.

    You see, [a] drinking alcohol leads to intoxication (i.e., drunk), therefore alcohol is a necessary condition for becoming drunk; [b] operating an automobile is a necessary condition for “driving;” [c] therefore, to be drunk driving, one must BOTH [a] and [b]. Neither [a] nor [b] are in and of themselves “drunk driving:” both conditions are necessary to achieve drunk driving.

    Take your own advice and learn to think.

  153. WillyPGuts: The topic is causation, not necessary extant conditions. Your post is irrelevant and nonsensical. In order to contract lung cancer you must also have a set of lungs. Do lungs therefore cause cancer? You must also be alive – which means all metabolic processes required to maintain life must be in operation, and therefore you must be engaging in all necessary activities to facilitate the functioning of these processes. Therefore, drinking liquids causes cancer, breathing oxygen causes cancer, eating practically any kind of food causes cancer, being freaking alive CAUSES cancer. Even if one were to accept your statement, under such a ridiculously broad definition, what can be seen as a causative agent – including tobacco smoke – becomes absolutely meaningless, and your point is utterly lost anyway.

    Again, the original post is talking about causation. So, YOU take MY advice and actually try to learn what words mean before posting to blogs and making yourself look like a fool.

  154. You are a fucking idiot.

  155. Wow! That was absolutely BRILLIANT, Adam! You REALLY put me in my place, boy! What an incredibly insightful and well though-out argument! You actually managed to string five WHOLE words together in a coherent sentence. Tell the truth now, Adam: Did your Mom help you with that? Huh? Maybe just a little?

  156. That’s a bad analogy considering you can stop drunk driving by simply not driving when you’re drunk and still be drunk, while the risk for smoking will still remain if you are a smoker. The only way I can see anyone go about this is to smoke less.

  157. That’s like saying gravity doesn’t cause objects to fall, it’s the people that drop things.

    Jumping off a building might increase death upon falling, but who knows? you might land on a pile of cotton candy on your way down. Therefore it doesn’t cause death.

    But wait, if I die, jumping off a tall building didn’t kill me. It’s me who decided to jump. Therefore jumping off tall buildings did not cause my death.

  158. No, it’s not like saying gravity does not cause objects to fall, at all. If you eliminate gravity, objects will cease to fall. Gravity is a necessary factor in the falling of objects. Objects fall weather people are involved or not, no? Gravity, therefore, bears an obviously causal relationship to the falling of objects. Smoking, however, is not a necessary factor in the development of cancer. There is NO type of cancer that is entirely exclusive to smokers.

    Your reference to jumping off a building is entirely disjointed. And, you seem to have completely misunderstood the point of the post. Jumping off of a tall building IS causal of death, if the jumper dies from it. It can be demonstrated beyond doubt that had a person not jumped, they would not have died. The relationship is, without doubt, a causal one.

    An apt analogy that actually applies to the point of the post, using your imagery, would be to say that tall buildings cause suicide – but, they don’t. Such a statement would be absurd. People do commit suicide by jumping off of tall buildings, but that doesn’t mean tall buildings CAUSE it to happen. There is certainly a relationship between tall buildings and some suicides, but the relationship is not causal in nature. Even if 99% of every person who ever committed suicide did so by jumping off of tall buildings, it still wouldn’t necessarily mean that tall buildings were what was causing it to happen.

  159. Speechless from this blog, sounds to me that the op Derek is a real schmuck! English grammar is horrible but beyond that 0 intelligence.

    Do not even waste you time with this blog.

    Peter.

  160. English grammar is horrible but beyond that 0 intelligence.

    Pot, meet kettle! You freakin’ sub-moron. What did English grammar ever do to you? And, why have you chosen my blog to spew your opinions regarding it?

    Do you have any legitimate criticisms or arguments? Anything beyond your infantile, vacuous ad-hominem nonsense?

    …yeah, I didn’t thinks so.

    Are you beginning to see yet, people? Mr. Lashtank is a prime example of the level of idiocy I have to deal with on a constant basis. It gets frustrating.

  161. “…yeah, I didn’t thinks so.”

    (answering our own questions now?) now you are not only a schmuck but a childish putz also!

    “Are you beginning to see yet, people? Mr. Lashtank is a prime example of the level of idiocy I have to deal with on a constant basis. It gets frustrating.”

    This is great, talking to the people! Actually trying to use them to strengthen your statement. Like they care about this blog? You started the blog and it is getting frustrating? Get a life you ultimate loser!

    Nice symbol next to your name derek, i really like it a lot…….on second thought it is crap just like this blog.

  162. (answering our own questions now?)

    Uh… I was entirely correct, wasn’t I? Still no legitimate criticism; still no argument. Nothing but more empty, infantile ad-hominem nonsense.

    2) How was I trying to use anyone to strengthen any statement? Do you not understand the concept of the rhetorical question? …no, I expect you wouldn’t.

    3) Trust me, it’s not just on this blog that I have to put up with the addle-minded attacks of sub-moronic mouth-breathers that lack any thread of ability for any sort of informed, rational thought. You people are EVERYWHERE! And, you seem to be multiplying at an alarming rate.

    4) Oh, you don’t like my little graphic? I’m absolutely devastated, I can assure you! How are you going to roast me next with your astounding, razor-sharp wit? Perhaps by passing a note to your friend in gym class that insults my hair cut?

    Go away, kid. You’re an imbecile and you don’t matter – and your asinine opinions CERTAINLY don’t matter. What’s even worse, however, is that you’re REALLY beginning to bore the hell out of me.

  163. Oh yes master of rhetorics, I shall leave so I do bore you. It takes you long enough to write your comeback ( a lot of dictionary work and proof reading I guess)

    You know what dick? You imply that smoking does no cause cancer… but i hope you get cancer from smoking! If you do not smoke then second hand I am hoping for ;)

    You probably believe in god too!

    Now I am bored, see you later brown skin.

  164. I would like to fart right on derek’s face! I would like to blow hershey squirts right up his nose and watch him puke on his cigarettes in church.

    Yeah that sounds nice to all.

    I write this on his blog because it is shit, and deserves to have shit on it.

    Ciao ragazzo’s and ragazza’s.

    Oh yeah and see you too dick!

  165. I rest my case.

    Here’s another comment directed to “the people” – and, not so rhetorical this time: I’m often questioned when I talk about the typical mindsets of people that commonly make up the anti-smoking movement. Well, if any of you wish to keep questioning my accusations of rampant infintilism, bigotry and sociopathic tendencies among that crowd, I point you to this entire comment thread in general, and Mr. Lashtank’s comments in particular.

    Thank-you, Mr. Lashtank.. or, Mr. Kwok Kwok, or whatever your name is. Thank-you for doing SO much (more than I could ever do, in fact) to provide such a rock-solid illustration of my claims. I feel like I should owe you money, or something.

  166. Simply put without all the incoherent rambling of big words: It is a contributing factor, period. End of discussion.

  167. Well put Tyler..well put indeed. The OP loves using incoherent, meaningless big words as a means to show what a great philosopher she is. Rambling on about nothing but inane chatter.

    End of discussion. It is a contributing factor, period.

    Peace

  168. People that get cancer are born with a cancer gene in their DNA. There are triggers in life that can bring it on quicker than it would happen naturally, but no, smoking in itself does not cause the cancer. It just exasperates it and causes it to occur sooner.

  169. I quit smoking over a year ago. I have put on 100 pounds since then but I only eat 1 meal a day and only snack on popcorn. I don’t drink soda or other fattening crap. I walk 2.5 miles a day for 3 days and jog the 2.5 miles the other 4. Why can’t I lose the weight? : (

    Highly considering starting smoking again. I never had the problem with weight until I quit!

  170. Good blog!!!
    Shame about the people who have only used it to spout off obscenities.
    I must say Dave you can be a tad condescending and cruel even to those posters who are trying to be constructive and add a sound argument to the case, even though you do not think it is sound. On saying that your bluntness doesn’t deter from your argument.

    I agree that the statement “smoking causes lung cancer” is meaningless unless it is used in the same sentence as “radon, Air pollution, Asbestos, combustion engine fumes, ect,ect cause lung cancer”.
    Even to state “smoking may cause lung cancer” you would fairly and ethically have to state all other causes of lung cancer as well.

    When blaming smoking as the cause of death from lung cancer would it not be reasonable to have first eliminated all other causes?
    Is it even possible to do that? If it’s not then you cannot claim one lung cancer death was definitely caused by smoking no matter how conclusive the relationship appears to be.

    Does anyone know just how many smokers die from asbestos related lung cancer that do not have asbestos as cause of death? ……….no? ………..why not?
    I am sure Dave knows!!!!
    Who wants to dilute the statistics/relationship when your trying to persecute a particular group of society.

  171. I have been smoking for 52 years. In 2009 I developed bladder cancer and I am going for my 6th TURBT to have the tumors removed. I know that there is a 70% chance that the tumors will return again if I continue to smoke but I am so afraid that if I quit I will get cancer somewhere else in my body. I am down from a pack a day to a 1/2 a pk a day but just can’t get myself to quit.
    I already have an impaired immune system which I am sure contributed to the bladder cancer. At this point I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t.
    Just wanted to add my comment that I agree with the fact that smoking does not cause cancer.

  172. been smoking for over 38 years now. i have lung cancer. tumor on the right side of my lung, i have had cancer in the back of my head and operated on 2 years ago. i have also had esophagus cancer and probably still do.

    i have to agree with op, smoking does not cause cancer.

    great blog. must be a real master mind behind this blog. joker.

    wish i would have never smoked. because smoking does cause cancer and definitely contributes.

    goodbye lovlies.

  173. Sorry Derek for calling you Dave, that’s made me look credible.

  174. Thanks for your useful article. One other problem is that mesothelioma cancer is generally brought on by the inhalation of materials from mesothelioma, which is a positivelly dangerous material. It’s commonly observed among personnel in the construction industry that have long contact with asbestos. It is also caused by living in asbestos protected buildings for an extended time of time, Family genes plays a crucial role, and some people are more vulnerable for the risk as compared with others.

  175. For decades cancer has been empirically linked to the use of tobacco, but only recently have researchers showed a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Studies of patients with lung cancer revealed that 60 percent exhibited mutations in a gene known as p53. This gene is responsible for the synthesis of a protein that keeps cells growing in a controlled fashion and when necessary, causes cell to commit suicide. To be more specific, one of the compounds in tobacco (benzopyrene) has the ability to attach and mutate three spots in this gene, the same spots where the p53 gene has been changed in lung cancer patients. Studies of this nature give strong scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.

  176. Hi Sergio. Thank-you for your comment.

    I’m sure that you’re aware that benzopyrene is a chemical which is produced and released into the atmosphere every single time ANY organic material undergoes the process of combustion. Ergo, if the p53 theory is entirely correct, (and, there is substantial scientific evidence that argues AGAINST this being the case) then, yes, it would be safe to say that “smoking causes cancer.” It would be EQUALLY safe to say that cooking your food – ANY food – CAUSES cancer, driving a car causes cancer, having a bonfire causes cancer, fireplaces cause cancer, etc., etc, So, please remember that the next time you sit down to enjoy a nice, home-cooked meal, you’re engaging in an activity that CAUSES cancer in people.

    Besides, the P53/smoking theory has largely been abandoned as nonsense by everyone in the scientific community who isn’t on the dole of big-pharma’s research grants. The evidence shows that it is not the smoking gun that the tobacco Nazis had originally hoped it would be:

    BPDE adducts are unrelated to lung cancer risk:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20929901

    Physiological conditions selects for cells with mutated p53:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9683793
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8538748

    P53-inactivating mutations are a late event, occurring after a cancer has already been established:
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/6942

    Marijuana smoke contains MUCH higher levels of benzopyrene than does tobacco smoke, is inhaled more deeply, and for much longer periods, by its users, yet has no association to the development of lung cancers:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

    Daily intake of benzopyrene from breathing London air is equivalent in total volume to the intake from smoking five packs of cigarettes per day: (FIVE packs per day… Have you ever known a smoker that smoked five packs per day? Yet, rural smokers are perceived to be at MANY times greater risk to lung cancer than urban non-smokers?!?!? And, the responsible agent is benzopyrene?!?!?)
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/CTRMN043191-3193.html

  177. Smoking may perhaps not cause cancer, but it certainly increase the risk of getting cancer. Not only lung cancer, but also other health related disease. High blood pressure for instances. It is not unreasonable for anyone to claim that smoking does not necessarily lead to the eventual death and any particular individual and I do not believe that any credible published journal ever asserts that there is a mathematical certainty about this type of causal relationship. But what does make sense to the public is that smoking increases the risk of getting cancer, and any human beings should try to do their best to avoid doing the activity that may increase their chance of death. Drink driving, for example, certainly comports with this kind of sensation. Getting drunk will not necessarily lead you to get into a car accident, but it would certainly increase the chance dramatically. Anti-smoking ad uses the word “cause” in a way to promote their information. The word “Cause” is certainly more forceful than “contribution.” This is just one way for the ad to be more persuasive. Quite smoking, even though you may not feel the benefits in the short run. Besides, it saves money, a good reason for any smoker to pursue as well.

  178. Think about it in very general terms. Though it has been proven that smoking correlates to increased CHANCES of cancer, it does not guarantee it. Whether to smoke or not is a choice that every individual decides for themselves based upon whether they are willing to risk their well-being (cons) for the satisfaction they derive from tobacco (pros), which will be, in hypothetical numerical terms, a ratio (pros)/(cons). If the pros outweighs the cons for you, then hey, why not smoke? After all, we (at least the average person) make decisions that put our well-being in jeopardy on a daily basis. For example, why do fried foods exist when so many “healthy” substitutes exist and when they’re generally considered “unhealthy”? It’s simply because we are willing to overlook the consequences of eating it because the taste of it is just too damn good (for me anyways). As another example, consider a job. Work in itself seems to be stressful for the average person. Stress in itself is very harsh on the human mind. Well if you would agree that work induces any measurable amount of stress on you, then why work? Well obviously so you can make money and buy the shit you want with it. So in essence, you’re sacrifing your well being, as well ashis thought pattern applies to smoking as well.

  179. Think about it in very general terms. Though it has been proven that smoking correlates to increased CHANCES of cancer, it does not guarantee it. Whether to smoke or not is a choice that every individual decides for themselves based upon whether they are willing to risk their well-being (cons) for the satisfaction they derive from tobacco (pros), which will be, in hypothetical numerical terms, a ratio (pros)/(cons). If the pros outweighs the cons for you, then hey, why not smoke? After all, we (at least the average person) make decisions that put our well-being in jeopardy on a daily basis. For example, why do fried foods exist when so many “healthy” substitutes exist and when they’re generally considered “unhealthy”? It’s simply because we are willing to overlook the consequences of eating it because the taste of it is just too damn good (for me anyways). As another example, consider a job. Work in itself seems to be stressful for the average person. Stress in itself is very harsh on the human mind. Well if you would agree that work induces any measurable amount of stress on you, then why work? Well obviously so you can make money and buy the shit you want with it. So in essence, you’re sacrifing your well being, as well as your time, in order to gain money, which contributes to your happiness. If you can fathom this thought now, you’ll probably understand that the average smoker chooses to smoke without thinking twice because they’re happier people with smoking implemented in their life. Note that I’m not saying everyone would be happier living their lives as a smoker. To those who use to smoke and look back with regret, good for you bro, I’m happy that you’re happier living a smoke free lifestyle, just don’t push your OPINION on others or consider people inferior for smoking, for it might be worthwhile to quit for you, but I (personally) and better off (happier) with my current lifestyle that includes smoking. And to those who have never smoked a cigarette and actively criticize smoking, shut the fuck up. The fact you have never smoked a cigarette shows you have no personal experience on the matter, which at most is still only an opinion. Who knows, you might even grow quite fond of it if you tried it. And lastly, to those who were bugged by Laura’s comment, don’t mind her ignorance. It’s people like that who will die off in the ultimate course of evolution, so don’t waste your breath trying to insult her out of anger. Let her be lost in her own ignorance. Just read her comment, laugh in your head, and pay no more attention towards the matter. (her comment is quite ironic anyways)

  180. Derek, that is completely erroneous information.

    There is a protein called the Tumor Suppressor Protein, also known as the p53.

    Your response tells me your understanding of cancer is incorrect. We all have cancer. All cancer is, is abnormal cell growth, which we all undergo. The only reason the constant abnormal cell growth doesn’t turn into a malignant tumor is due to the p53 gene telling the cell to perform cell suicide, or apoptosis. Remember, your body has an approximate number of a hundred trillion cells, one is bound to misfire and grow out of control. Don’t you think that our body’s defense system has a way to shut them down? The notion that it has been abandoned is something that just isn’t true. People who smoke who seem to evade lung cancer might be explained by a high number of p53 genes.

    Yes, even cooking olive oil can give you cancer. I bet you don’t even know why though. Can you, in fact, tell me why? It’s because people who cook oil long enough for it to smoke breaks and switches the covalent bonds in the fatty acids, thus turning your oil into trans fats.

    I don’t mind you speaking your mind, but I just wish people like you would do your research first before you read something and make up your mind.

  181. I don’t care if people smoke, I used to smoke. I just cannot stand the ignorance on the science behind it. Smoke all you want, I’m glad you all can smoke. I sometimes have a smoke if I’m stressed, but it does inhibit your defense system against abnormal cell growth (cancer).

  182. but it does inhibit your defense system against abnormal cell growth

    Which would be indicative of a correlative, and not necessarily a causative relation – as has already been explained multiple times throughout this comment thread.

    Yes, even cooking olive oil can give you cancer.

    You would say, then, that cooking food causes cancer?

    As per the rest of your comment regarding the P53 gene: The National Academy of Science, for one, doesn’t agree with you:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/22/12244.full.pdf

    “Consistent with this is a general view that the majority of somatic p53 mutations in tumors are of ENDOGENOUS origin. Indeed, silent p53 mutations do not fit the hypothesis of smoke-raised mutation rate in general and the BPDE-adduct spectrum in particular. …If, and only if, the product of these two multiplications is positively correlated with the real p53 mutational spectrum, it then will be possible to demonstrate a causal link between a tested mutagen and specific cancer.” (emphasis mine)

    “It is an almost consensus opinion that the major carcinogenic risk of tobacco smoke is in its direct mutagenic action on DNA of cancer-related genes. The key data supposedly linking smoke induced mutations to lung cancer were obtained from the adduct spectrum of the p53 tumor suppressor gene. Results of our analysis of p53 mutations compiled from the International Agency for Research on Cancer p53 database (April 1999 update) and from the literature point to a different causative link. …However, on each of the two strands of p53 DNA, our tests revealed no significant difference between smokers and nonsmokers, either in the frequency of different types of mutations or in the frequency of their occurrence along the p53 gene. Moreover, in both smokers and nonsmokers, there was the same frequency of lung tumors with silent p53 mutations.”

    “If BPDE is a major initiating mutagen that shapes the lung cancer p53 mutational pattern and spectrum of smokers, then one would expect both the pattern and the spectrum to be essentially different in the lung tumors of confirmed nonsmokers. Until recently, published p53 mutational data in nonsmokers were sparse; consequently, reported differences should be viewed skeptically. …However, within-strand p53 mutational patterns of the two epidemiological groups [smokers and non-smokers] are, in fact, identical. Second, the distribution of G3T transversions along the p53 gene is also the same in lung cancers of smokers and in cancers of other, smoke-inaccessible tissues. Third, smokers do not differ from nonsmokers in the frequency of tumors with silent p53 mutations. …These results suggest the need to revise the tobacco smoke associated etiology of lung cancers with p53 mutations.”

  183. Derek, the amount of shit that escapes your mouth rivals the NYC sewer system flooding the East river. Not only do your arguments contradict themselves, but they make no sense. My “favorite” example is the drunk driving example, where you say alcohol doesn’t cause drunk driving. A sentence later you talk about things needing a 50% correlation rate to be considered for direct causality, well wrap your obviously damaged brain around this….every drunk driving case involves alcohol yes? Well then I would say that’s a 100% correlation thus opening it up for a causality discussion. But since its 100% then that’s really no arguement from anyone with a functioning hippocampus. My guess is you’re whats called a “right fighter” which means you don’t really care what the argument is or how ridiculous you sound defending it, as long as you get to be the one who is right. That being said I DO smoke, I stumbled across this site for a research paper, but the only useful information I found was that there is a giant douchebag named Derek somewhere out there in the world who deserves to be eliminated, survival of the fittest, and you sir are mentally unfit.

  184. Bryan,

    You’d likely find an easier time of things if you possessed even a modicum of ability with language comprehension.

    My quote:

    “Ask any honest medical research scientist and they will tell you that before researchers even begin to SPECULATE about a causative link, they require a bare minimum of a 50% corollary link. That means that to even begin to suspect a possible causative link, half of every smoker would have to be seen contracting lung cancer.”

    Do you not actually know what words mean, or something? Read it slowly. Ready it carefully. Nowhere does it say that anything more than a 50% corollary rate is evidence of causation. It says that before at least a 50% corollary rate is determined, causation isn’t even up for speculation. Try a little harder to not to be such a freakin’ moron, please!

    100% of people that die from, say, aneurysms, regularly consume water throughout their lives. That’s a 100% corollary rate. Is that indicative of causation, then? Does water CAUSE aneurysms?

    The quote is clear to anyone with greater than a grade-8 level of English comprehension: A 50%+ corollary rate is not, in any way, indicative of causation. It’s a general minimum which must be achieved before SPECULATION about POSSIBLE causation is even worth anyone’s time.

    Understand? IT’S THE ENTIRE FREAKIN’ POINT OF THE ARGUMENT, YOU INCREDIBLY ADDLE-MINDED DIMWIT! There is a 100% correlation between alcohol and drunk driving and ALCOHOL IS STILL NOT CAUSATIVE. There is a MUCH, MUCH lower correlation between smoking and lung cancer, yet the correlation is used as evidence for causation. CORRELATION IS NOT INDICATIVE OF CAUSATION. Get it? That’s THE WHOLE FREAKIN’ POINT! Did you not read it before commenting? Or, are you honestly THAT ridiculously obtuse?

    Congratulations on taking the time to embarrass yourself with your comment. You’ve adequately demonstrated that you’re an idiot — that’s what you are. As such, your opinions don’t matter. And, YOU don’t matter. Please go away, you tiny, ineffectual simpleton. I’d prefer to not have the nonsensical ravings of miniature-brained imbeciles cluttering up my blog. And, please, don’t breed.

  185. You need to be a part of a contest for one of the
    highest quality sites on the net. I will highly recommend this site!

  186. Correct! Smoking does not cause Cancer, It is amazing how Cancer Causing Campaigns are devised to scare people to death, Literally. Very Smart and the marketing of it is excellent, in its shock tactics.

    You now when they are running low on their profits, is when they boost the Scare Tactic Advertising Campaigns Aggressively.

    Only to get people to purchase more of their products such as Patches, Drugs and Nico Gum, etc… Smart, Money Making Machine.

    What makes things worst is the ostracisation. As if smokers have leprosy.
    Yes, it may not be the best smell. Other than that, what is with the big judgement?

    If cigarettes kill people, it will become illegal.

    And obvious of course, in moderation, be sensible people.
    If I chain smoked cigarettes with no air in between, I would be breathing through a cigarettes, I will die. But it wont be from cancer.

    Again, if I drank a ton of water in one hit, yes I will drown/die.

    If I ate 5 tons of steak in one go with no break, yes again.. There goes my awesome body.

    Cancer is caused by various factors, majorly of it is via psychological physics.

    Be wise people, do your research.

    I met two people who have been smoking 30+ Years. They had Lung Scans, and to the doctors surprise. The results revealed clean healthy lungs, one women, had greater lung expansion than an 18 year old.
    Her secret? She didn’t buy into the fear, and maintained a healthy lifestyle.

    Cheers!

  187. Derek,
    Let me be clear. Either smoking causes cancer or not, the truth is I won’t smoke because I simply believe it harms, no evidence is needed. And for you, if you wanna smoke go ahead, you can even smoke 100 packs a day if you want. I would suggest you to stick 5 cigarettes at once in your mouth, it feels better. Probably you may wanna add 2 more on your nostrils. Relax it won’t harm… It will make you feel excellent.. LOL

  188. ^ Yet more pointless verbage coming from someone on that side of the issue.

  189. Smoking causes a multitude of diseases. Diseases are caused by smoking because tobacco products contain cancer-causing and disease-casing ingredients. The severity of the illness is directly related to the length of time smoking and the products used in smoking.

    Two diseases caused by smoking are tar lungs and smoker’s cough. When you smoke, tar accumulates in your lungs. The lungs, through minute hair-like filaments called cilia, will remove tar. But if tar accumulation is too much, this will damage the lungs leading to tar lungs. The body will now look for other ways to remove tar and that is through coughing. This is the beginning of smoker’s.

    Article source : 1betteroff.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-damages-of-smoking-most-facts.html

  190. Using an analogy similar to the one you used with the automobiles and cancer:

    Hypothesis:
    Eating some kind of combination of foods (milk and cherries or whatever) causes diarrhea. But if you remove the milk and cherries or whatever from this world diarrhea doesn’t disappear.

    Your logic:
    (…) so, OBVIOUSLY, drinking milk and eating cherries doesn’t cause diarrhea.

    You confuse “SMOKING CAN CAUSE CANCER” as in “SOMETIMES IF THE VARIABLES AR SET AS THEY NEED TO BE SET, SMOKING CAUSES CANCER” with “ONLY SMOKING CAUSES CANCER”

    Your think you’re smart. You’re not that smart.

  191. 1. “if we were to somehow eliminate every automobile from the face of the planet tomorrow, we would also completely eliminate drunk driving”
    2. “if we were to somehow eliminate smoking tomorrow, there would still be an awful lot of cancer in the world ”

    The correct analogy is
    THE FIRST POINT ALONG WITH “if we were to somehow eliminate all the ORGANISMS tomorrow, we would also completely eliminate cancer”.
    OR THE SECOND POINT ALONG WITH “if we were to somehow eliminate all the alcohol…etc”

    Stop assuming that there can be only one thing that causes a certain event, and so, if you eliminate the THING, and the EVENT doesn’t disappear, OBVIOUSLY the THING was not responsible for the EVENT.

  192. Sword: Wrong. The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate how correlation, no matter the degree, does not necessarily indicate causation. The analogy, with regard to its purpose, is perfectly sound and requires no correction.

    The argument is often made that since there is such a strong apparent correlation between smoking and cancer, smoking must therefore be causative. The analogy shows that such an argument has no logical basis. For, if you are to accept that argument, you must also, by force of logic, accept that automobiles cause drunk-driving. Which, of course, is absurd.

    Your suggested correction would render the analogy entirely irrelevant to the point being made. Using “organisms” in the analogy would be nonsensical, as some organisms do, indeed, cause drunk driving.

    Nobody (at least on this side of the argument) is assuming there can be only one thing that causes a certain event. I don’t know how you figured otherwise.

    With regards to your “diarrhea” analogy, that analogy is also entirely irrelevant. Some combinations of foods do indeed cause diarrhea — but it’s not simply the correlation between the consumption of such combinations and the development of the condition that tells us that. And, if a correlation which existed in the capacity of “Some people consume food combination-X and then those people sometimes develop symptoms of diarrhea” was the only evidence we had regarding the relationship between that food combination and diarrhea, we’d have no real argument for causation.

  193. You say “smoking does not cause cancer”, so you are not better than any of “them” in my opinion. You base what you say only on the fact that they don’t know for SURE that smoking does cause cancer. You and them, are at the extremes.

    “Smoking does not cause cancer” ==>>
    from Y people that smoke, X have cancer
    from Y people that don’t smoke, X have cancer

    And that’s not the case.

    You base your arguments on the fact that smoking indeed is perhaps NOT the BASIC / INITIAL / SINGULAR CAUSE of cancer, therefore “smoking does not cause cancer”.

    Tell me, are you 100% sure that:
    “SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER”
    as in
    “EVERY PERSON THAT SMOKES AND HAD CANCER WOULD HAVE HAD CANCER IF HE WOULDN’T HAVE SMOKED?”

  194. No. As I’ve stated at least a couple of times in this comment thread already, I’m not sure that smoking does not cause cancer. But, the available evidence certainly points to that being the case — and, to such a degree that one may say with reasonable confidence that such is, indeed, the case.

    I’ve fully admitted that I may, in fact, be wrong. But, we go on the evidence that’s available to us, and the current evidence supports my position. I never make a statement that isn’t provisional in nature. Perhaps, at some time in the future, we’ll discover a causative mechanism. Thus far, however, we’ve failed to locate one. And, we’ve been looking damned hard for quite some time now.

    And, you’ve misrepresented my position. My argument is not that smoking “is perhaps NOT the BASIC / INITIAL / SINGULAR CAUSE of cancer, therefore “smoking does not cause cancer”. My argument is that there is absolutely no reliable evidence that shows smoking has a causative link to cancer in any way whatsoever. Thus, the statement “smoking does not cause cancer” is currently a far more reasonable assertion than “smoking causes cancer.” Indeed, the most reasonable. Period. I’m not 100% sure that cottage cheese doesn’t cause brain tumors either, but I’m confident enough in making the statement “cottage cheese does not cause brain tumors.”

    And, no, I’m not 100% sure that every smoker who developed cancer would have developed it anyway had they not smoked. In fact, I’m pretty certain there are some cancer patients who likely wouldn’t have developed cancer had they not smoked. Your question doesn’t relate to my argument. I’ve fully admitted a corollary link between smoking and cancer. If you smoke, you’re more likely to develop certain types of cancer than you would be if you hadn’t smoked. That much is clear. That says nothing, however, as to whether or not smoking is a causative agent.

    Every person who was killed while driving drunk wouldn’t have been killed if they didn’t have access to an automobile while they were intoxicated. Cars still don’t cause drunk-driving. There’s a 100% correlation between cars and drunk-driving. Cars still don’t cause drunk driving. If you have access to automobiles while intoxicated you’re far more likely to be killed driving drunk than if you don’t have such access. Cars still don’t cause drunk driving.

  195. 1.A. “Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!”
    1.B. “I’m not sure that smoking does not cause cancer”

    2.A. “there is absolutely no reliable evidence that shows smoking has a causative link to cancer in any way whatsoever”
    2.B. “I’m pretty certain there are some cancer patients who likely wouldn’t have developed cancer had they not smoked”

    3. ““smoking does not cause cancer” is currently a far more reasonable assertion than “smoking causes cancer.”

    We seem to be on the same page. We don’t know for sure, we suspect. How do we suspect? By studying those who smoke and those who don’t and seeing that more of those who do smoke, have cancer than those who don’t => smoking has something to do with it. I don’t know if it represents the only cause but it sure helps, therefore there IS a causative link, but it was not identified and we don’t know what that link is, but it’s there. It could very well be the paper that holds the tobacco that causes cancer when it burns and is inhaled.

    Anyhow,
    More reasonable assertions than “”Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!” are:
    1. Smoking does not cause cancer for sure.
    2. Smoking can cause certain types of cancer
    3. Smoking can help prevent certain types of cancer (there are studies that show that)
    4. Smoking WILL BE bad for your lungs for 100% of the smokers
    5. Smoking does NOT CAUSE lung cancer for 100% of the smokers

    In no way whatsoever “”Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!” is correct. It’s:
    AT BEST: misleading
    AT MEDIUM: lying by omission
    AT WORST: lying

  196. As for the drunk driving, the things are even more simple.

    1. smoking causes (or not) cancer
    2. automobiles cause drunk driving

    1. to smoke = to inhale tobacco
    A. a substance
    B. if it exists in nature, it doesn’t cause harm by itself
    C. the action of smoking: it has to be burned and inhaled in order to (potentially) cause harm

    2. alcohol
    A. a substance
    B. if it exists in nature, it doesn’t cause harm by itself
    C. the action of drinking: it has to be DRANK by someone in order to (potentially) cause harm

    3. automobile
    A. a thing
    B. if it exists in nature, it doesn’t cause harm by itself
    C. the action of driving: it has to be DRIVEN by someone in order to (potentially) cause harm

    =>

    Smoking (3.C) causes (or can cause) cancer. (true)
    Automobiles (3.A.) can cause drunk driving. (false)
    Driving (3.C.) after drinking (2.C.) causes drunk driving. (true)

    A thing, the pure existence of a thing is not responsible for the thing being used for.
    You cannot say that the atomic bomb causes mass destruction, but the use of the atomic bomb.
    You cannot say that the KROKODIL causes deaths, but the use of it.
    Just as you cannot say that the existence of cigarettes causes smoking (and subsequently causes or not cancer).

    Conclusion:

    SMOKING (action) CAUSES CANCER (A) = DRIVING (action) WHILE DRUNK CAUSE DUI AND ACCIDENTS (A)
    CIGARETTES (thing) CAUSE SMOKING (F) = AUTOMOBILES (thing) CAUSE DRUNK DRIVING (F)

  197. corrections:
    1.
    Smoking (1.C) causes (or can cause) cancer. (true)
    instead of
    Smoking (3.C) causes (or can cause) cancer. (true)

    2.
    CIGARETTES (thing) CAUSE CANCER(F) = AUTOMOBILES (thing) CAUSE DRUNK DRIVING (F)
    instead of
    CIGARETTES (thing) CAUSE SMOKING (F) = AUTOMOBILES (thing) CAUSE DRUNK DRIVING (F)

  198. 1.A. “Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!”
    1.B. “I’m not sure that smoking does not cause cancer”

    As has been explained, there’s nothing incongruous about those two statements. Are you sure that cottage cheese doesn’t cause brain tumors? If not, do you therefore think it reasonable to claim that cottage cheese does, in fact, cause brain tumors? Do you demand that everyone go around claiming “We’re not sure if cottage cheese causes brain tumors”?

    The fact of the matter is really very simple: All of our best evidence suggests that smoking does not cause cancer. The statement, like all statements, is provisional in nature — all of our best evidence may be wrong, of course. If you think it’s wrong, your task should be a simple one: Provide some reasonable evidence that smoking causes cancer. I’ve been asking people to do that since at least the posting of this article eight years ago. So far, despite millions of views, nobody has been able to. We’ve even had a molecular geneticist, in this very thread, who was currently working directly in the field of immunogenic cancer research, who finally admitted, openly, that smoking indeed doesn’t cause cancer, but the general public is too stupid to take adequate warning from the truthful phrase “smoking increases one’s chances of contracting cancer” so, it’s safer to lie to them and say “Smoking causes cancer.” However, if you think you can provide any such evidence, have at it. I’ll be waiting.

    But, you can’t go around saying “We don’t know if X causes cancer or not, therefore X might cause cancer, therefore X causes cancer.” It’s irrational and irresponsible. You need some reliable evidence that shows ‘X’ causes cancer. When it comes to smoking, there is none. If you want to say “I suspect X may cause cancer.” Then you need to provide evidence for why such a suspicion is warranted. And, if you are able to provide evidence that warrants suspicion, that does not then grant you license to make the declarative statement: X causes cancer.

    2.A. “there is absolutely no reliable evidence that shows smoking has a causative link to cancer in any way whatsoever”
    2.B. “I’m pretty certain there are some cancer patients who likely wouldn’t have developed cancer had they not smoked”

    Again, two statements that are not in the least way incongruent. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that automobiles cause drunk driving. I’m pretty certain, however, there are some people who have driven drunk that wouldn’t have had they not had access to an automobile at the time of their intoxication.

    We don’t know for sure, we suspect

    The problem is, I’ve yet to see any anti-smoking propaganda that’s being foisted upon the masses that says “We don’t know for sure if smoking causes cancer. But, we suspect it may.” If it did, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it. Instead, how it commonly reads is: “Smoking CAUSES cancer.” There is no rational basis for that assertion. The public is being lied to.

    By studying those who smoke and those who don’t and seeing that more of those who do smoke, have cancer than those who don’t => smoking has something to do with it. I don’t know if it represents the only cause but it sure helps, therefore there IS a causative link

    Well, congratulations on demonstrating that you possess a woefully stunted ability with logic. As has been adequately explained to you (multiple times) correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation. There is a 100% correlation between automobiles and drunk driving. AUTOMOBILES do not CAUSE drunk driving. We can study those who have access to automobiles and those who don’t and find that more people who have access to automobiles drive drunk. The correlation could be as high as 100%. It still, in no way, shows that automobiles cause drunk driving. Your assertion ‘smoking has something to do with it…therefore there IS a causative link.’ Is a glaring logical fallacy. It’s a non-sequitur. Automobiles have something to do with drunk driving, therefore its a causative link? Please! Automobiles are a factor, not a cause. Smoking is a factor, not a cause.

    More reasonable assertions than “”Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!” are:
    1. Smoking does not cause cancer for sure.
    2. Smoking can cause certain types of cancer
    3. Smoking can help prevent certain types of cancer (there are studies that show that)
    4. Smoking WILL BE bad for your lungs for 100% of the smokers
    5. Smoking does NOT CAUSE lung cancer for 100% of the smokers

    #2 and #4 on your list are statements entirely unsupported by available evidence. In fact, #4 has been shown to be downright false. The rest have no bearing on the topic being discussed.

    In no way whatsoever “”Get It Straight! – SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!” is correct. It’s:
    AT BEST: misleading
    AT MEDIUM: lying by omission
    AT WORST: lying

    It’s none of those things. It’s the truth. If you have any reasonable evidence whatsoever as to why it’s not, I’m waiting for it. Your proclamations and logical fallacies count for nothing.

    Your second comment is an absurd attempt to argue semantics. Nobody is claiming that something not put to effect has effect. It should be perfectly clear that we’re talking about the consumption of tobacco. Your comment is just plain silly, needless, and the “conclusion” you arrive at is another non-sequitur. Automobiles, whether they’re sitting stationary, untouched by humans or not, do not cause drunk driving. Likewise, the consumption of tobacco does not cause cancer.

    CIGARETTES (thing) CAUSE CANCER(F) = AUTOMOBILES (thing) CAUSE DRUNK DRIVING (F)

    Right! Those two things are, indeed, equal. And, automobiles don’t cause drunk driving. So, therefore…

    And, cigarettes don’t cause smoking. That’s an incredibly idiotic assertion. How, exactly, has any cigarette ever caused anyone to smoke? I want to explain to me the exact mechanism cigarettes use to cause people to smoke.

    It would seem as though your stated “conclusions” completely undermine your own position. Bravo! You officially have no argument.

  199. Huh! Well, now! This is certainly an interesting development:

    Science says: The lungs of long-term, heavy smokers are good enough for YOU!

  200. I’ll get my lawyer to go through that lot with a fine toothed comb.

    Meanwhile, im 61 years old and have smoked for 50 years. These days i do rollies, (strong tobacco) cos off-the-shelf packs are too bloody expensive.

    On my annual health check up this year, my nurse told me i have the blood pressure of a teenager, my lung capacity is good for my age and my cholesterol level is within the normal range.

    In my time ive played football, done martial arts, cycling and swimming. Im a bit older now so my main excercise is walking-i do 15-20 miles per week.

    I love smoking and have never even thought about giving up.

  201. Michael: There was a study published not long ago which showed that chronic conditions among the elderly have been rising at a fairly steady rate over the last couple of decades. Of course, they didn’t mention in the study why they thought this might be so – just that it was occurring. But, in crunching the numbers, it’s easily apparent that the rate of these chronic conditions have been increasing at roughly the same rate smoking rates have been declining. When one keeps in mind that tobacco has long been known, and used, for its anti-bacterial and anti-fungal benefits, it shouldn’t be too difficult to put two and two together. Of course, that little nugget of reason will never be publicly broadcast given the current social climate regarding tobacco use. But, there it is.

    http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p23-212.pdf

  202. It took me 5 hours to read all these messages I am not proud.

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>