posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:45 AM
I believe data gets cherry picked, and the government has a very clear agenda. They want to make everyone think smoking kills relentlessly and
indiscriminately. They want to make us believe that if we get lung, or mouth, or throat, or bladder cancer, it's because of the cigarettes we
Numerical corrolaries are meaningless without intense, expensive diagnosis of cancer patients to discover the source of their cancer. It's easier to
say 'smoking kills' than it is to investigate the other causes.
75% of lung cancer deaths in the US are attributable to forest fires in Western Canada. The smoke from forest fires is higher in particulate content,
un-filtered, and highly contaminated by industrial pollutants it binds with in the middle to upper aptmosphere.
Dust storms blowing across the Atlantic carry more carcinogens than you could possibly hope to smoke in a lifetime.
I'm in a discussion about this at the moment, in a thread about silver bullet cures for cancer, and I reserve judgement until I see conclusive
evidence. What you posted wasn't conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. What those studies continue to prove is an anecdotal link, there's
no hard, physiological evidence that smoke from a cigarette can initiate a cancer cluster.
Ever hear of that experiment when they passed smoke over the rats for months at a time, and couldn't get a single cancerous growth to sprout? Then
they inserted a nicotine and polonium disc into the rat's spine and sure enough, CANCER. Well, call me crazy, but if you insert a radioactive disc
into the spine of an animal, it's probably going to get cancer. Smoking cigarettes is an entirely acceptable form of drug use, and has been around
for centuries. The government is being a bully, trying to cover up the damage from their nuclear tests and careless polution, and I refuse to be
And yes, I have looked. I'm a smoker, and I got so tired of being blamed for all the ills of America, I did some research. There are tons of
meaningless studies that focus on statistics which are by their very nature misleading.
I'm waiting for mattison to get back to me on the uptake of polonium into the tissues of tobacco plants, and the part anhydrous ammonia plays. I'm
hoping he can shed some light on the issue. Till then, call me skeptical.