I can hear many many people out there saying "ha" told you so - smoking does cause lung cancer. Epidimiology proves it!
Well - and this must be very clearly understood! Epidimiology PROVES NOTHING. Correlation (or association) is NOT CAUSATION.
There are 40 known causes of lung cancer and all the observational studies in the world cannot correct for the confounding of these other factors.
The most important confounder is diesel exhaust. Smokers and non-smokers alike are exposed to diesel exhaust. It contains the same particulate, the
same benzene, formaldehydes, and methyl ethyl awfuls as tobacco smoke. As a matter of fact, all smoke contains these contaminants because these
contaminates are products of combustion and NOT something that the tobacco companies put in cigarettes.
Epidimiology has proven that there is a difference between lung cancer rates in rural areas and in cities. Are anti-smokers trying to say that
smoking is more toxic in the cities then in the country? Or that rural dwellers are immune to the toxic effects of smoking?
Further Epidimiology has also proven that lung cancer rates remain low in countries where smoking rates are highest!
Lastly - as I have pointed out - epidimiology is merely the science of observation to determine associations. It is used as a tool to highlight areas
of further research by the hard sciences.
To date - there is no means of determining the cause of any particular case of lung cancer except for mesothelioma where asbestos particles may be
The proof that this so is presented in a court case called McTeer vs JTI. Three scientients presented evidence to the court that smoking CAUSES lung
cancer. One of those scientists was Sir Richard Doll - the granddaddy of the anti-smoking campaign.
Three scientists also presented evidence regarding the fact that there is as yet no specific proof that the association between lung cancer and
smoking is true.
This is a link for the court transcript - for your reading pleasure but the justice in this case, Nimmo Smith - summed up all the evidence that
smoking CAUSES lung cancer and it all came down to "BECAUSE WE SAY IT DOES!"
Further - the evidence that smoking DOES NOT CAUSE lung cancer is contained within our very own population.
The rate of smoking in the population started declining in 1975 - more than 36 years ago - but the rate of lung cancer has not declined in any
Further lung cancer remains a disease of aging. It occurs mainly in the 60s and 70s and its incidence starts to decline as you reach the 80s. This
is the same for smokers and never-smokers.
Would you think that if smokers were actively exposing themselves to carcinogens generally starting in their early teens that they would end up with
lung cancer a little sooner than the never smoking population.
Tired of Control Freaks