It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Largest Medical Malpractice Cover-up of All Time

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:17 AM
In the 1980s, a large campaign was underway educating people on how cigarette smoking will cause lung cancer. Large lawsuits against the tobacco companies started, and millions were paid out to victims of the criminally acting tobacco companies. But is this the truth? To analyze what exactly is happening to our populace, we need to go back a few more decades.

From Radiation expert warns of danger from overuse of medical X-rays, claiming they're responsible for many cancer and heart disease deaths
"Prior to 1940, no medical exam was considered complete without X-ray procedures, generally including fluoroscopy where the X-ray beam stays on," he said. "In fact, X-ray exposure began even in the womb for many people who are now age 30 and over, because until 1970, about one birth in every 14 was preceded by pelvic X-rays of the mother shortly before delivery, to measure the birth canal."

It is also important to note that the levels of x-rays were 100x higher then what is considered acceptable levels of x-rays now. These "safe" levels were established in the 1970s. What about the population before that time? An interesting study, Overview of DE Lung Cancer Epidemiologic Studies followed 55,000 people working in “known” carcinogenic environment over their lives found no direct correlation to lung cancer based on exposure, as was reported by the American Medical Association (AMA).

During the 1960s to 1980s, there was a huge surge of reports of lung cancer. The AMA needed a scapegoat. Who had money? Well, the tobacco companies did. A conflict of interest arose when the AMA produced a study indicating that tobacco caused lung cancer. The studies in U.S.A. all determined the same cause, but at the same time, all had links to the AMA – the same group responsible for x-raying this unborn generation experiencing this surge.

A woman never exposed to cigarette smoke contracted lung cancer. They found that she must have been exposed at some point in her life, which makes no sense. If tobacco is a known carcinogenic, there should be a link between level of exposure and cancer. The AMA insists there is, and as long as they do, they receive government funds and keep pointing the finger away from themselves.

What about other organizations?

From Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer – official
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”

Let’s look at this report a bit closer.

From Second-Hand Smoke Craziness - Part Two
A World Health Organization study in 1998 showed that there was no significant risk of cancer to children from second-hand smoke. The study showed that the risk of developing cancer was actually lower for children raised in a home where one or both parents smoked.

Did the U.S.A. ever have studies that say otherwise?

From The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally "confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.
And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.

The AMA is now praising its anti-smoking campaign for the cause of the constant downswing on lung cancer. However, it appears that the generation exposed to pre-natal x-rays was dying off, and the next generation wasn’t exposed.
So, now we have U.S. agencies using false data to promote their own agendas, a scapegoat with deep pockets, and doctors pretending they didn’t do anything wrong.

I guess it is the American way.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:49 AM
It seems so "in your face" obvious, and yet never mentioned.

To me, yeah, smoke seems like something that could be responsible, but radiation seems SO much more likely.

Even my trusted doctors tell me NOT to get x-rayed without VERY good reason. I get the feeling he uses it only as a last resort. Perhaps that's as it should be.

Star & Flag

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:53 AM
Excellent research. S&F for you.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:04 PM
A couple of years ago when I was playing with the on-line debates here, a hypothetical argument was put forth that no one would accept the con side of cigarettes cause cancer. I stated that I would attempt that. I don't believe it was taken seriously.

In no other business would such a blatant conflict of interest be allowed. Yet, it was accepted as gospel without question just because people wanted it to be true.

Are the wrong people paying the lawsuits? I believe they are.

My father died of lung cancer. Yes, he smoked. However, he was also x-rayed in the womb.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
On the subject of radiation exposure, I was watching the History Channel yesterday and they were airing a program on the dooms day clock. Near the end of the program they stated that the number of official detonations would translate into an atomic bomb going off once every 10 days for the past 60 yrs. This was shocking to me, and these are the official tests so who knows how many actually have been detonated. That much radiation can't be good for us.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:10 PM
The studies I linked above include analysis of background radiation a person contracts over their lifetime. It doesn't appear to compensate for the steadily increased amount of radiation we are exposing ourselves to via nuclear testing. Very good point, and extremely scary when you think about it.

At what point will we start glowing in the dark?

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:24 PM
Interesting but it's obvious smoking is one of the most destructive and unhealthiest practices one could do. It's VERY apparent through tons of medical research that smoking causes lung cancer and lots of it. Look people of the "x ray in the womb" generation are dying off and they did A LOT of unhealthy things from smoking, to trans fats to x-rays. Smoking among the WWII generation was HUGE. So how can science differentiate between people that not only were probably x-rayed in the room but were also huge smokers. Some people smoke and get lung cancer and some don't. So what? Smoking is terrible for you and the cigarette companies are some of the most culpable, corrupt, and downright deceitful organizations that have ever existed. They deserve EVERYTHING they've had done to them in the form of lawsuits etc.


log in