They Lied! Smoking does not cause oral-pharangeal cancers!

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I don't know what you think providing a link for survival times of HPV and Non-HPV cancer proves?

We ARE NOT talking about mortality rates for oral-pharangeal cancer. People surviving longer or shorter times in an artifact of the medical treatment they receive.

We are talking about the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer. How often it happens. How many people get it.

Please try to stay on topic.

And if you keep coming out with things that don't address the initial post - then I will do the same thing I did before. Just stop talking to you because you just aren't making sense.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I don't know what you think providing a link for survival times of HPV and Non-HPV cancer proves?

That your statement that ALL OP cancer is caused by HPV is not backed up by facts and you are 100% wrong.

I believe that it will only be a matter of time until they identify all the strains that cause oral-pharangeal cancer.

We ARE NOT talking about mortality rates for oral-pharangeal cancer. People surviving longer or shorter times in an artifact of the medical treatment they receive.

Wrong. It's not. It is 100% proven there are multiple types of OP cancer, I sourced it. Different levels of care of course will effect outcomes, but saying level of care is the only indicator of mortality rates shows how ignorant you are on the subject YOU posted.

We are talking about the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer. How often it happens. How many people get it.

No, you are using incidence level to discuss causation. The real topic you are discussing is causation, not incidence level, as proven by the snippet I just provided.

Please try to stay on topic.

Everything I said it on topic and I used your OP to prove I am on topic. This is what you do when you don't like the way discussion is going. When people provide facts backed up with actual sources you try to change subjects. You still have not provided me with a single source backing up your statement about HPV being the single biggest cause of OP cancer. That is incidence, which you claim is the topic, so I have asked several times, and am asking again, source it, or stop posting things you KNOW to be a lie.

And if you keep coming out with things that don't address the initial post - then I will do the same thing I did before. Just stop talking to you because you just aren't making sense.

Tired of Control Freaks

Everything I posted deals directly with statements you made in the OP. You simply can't respond to my points because they absolutely 100% prove you wrong. And you are a Control Freak.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


And this is what you do OccamsRazor04, pretend that links weren't sourced. I invited you repeatedly to read the original post and you keep refusing to do so.

Do you really think its helpful to call people liars and other things when you won't even read the links provided?

Very well - i will repeat my work but only this once! You understand I have to go back and forth for this and it is extremely annoying. I will NOT be doing this again. I will simply ignore you if your unreasonable behavior continues. That means I will ignore you in this thread and in all future threads.

First of all - in response to your declaration that OP cancers are 100 % CAUSED by Tobacco

www.cancer.org...

Doctors and scientists can’t say for sure what causes each case of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer. But they do know many of the risk factors (see “What are the risk factors for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers?”) and how some of them cause cells to become cancerous.

READ THAT QUOTE CAREFULLY - Doctors and scientists cannot tell what the CAUSE of each case of OP is. OP is OP. It all looks the same. So exactly where you get the idea that tobacco CAUSED 100 % of OP, I just can't tell you!

This is another quote from the SAME LINK:

In human papilloma virus (HPV) infections, the virus causes cells to make 2 proteins known as E6 and E7. When these are made, they turn off some genes that normally help keep cell growth in check. Uncontrolled cell growth may in some cases lead to cancer. When HPV DNA is found in the tumor cells, especially in non-smokers who drink little or no alcohol, HPV is thought to be the likely cause of the cancer.

NOW DID YOU GET THAT! When they can identify strains of HPV in the tumor that make proteins as E6 and E7, they believe that HPV is the CAUSE of the cancer. Not tobacco...HPV!!!!

Then from the same link:

In human papilloma virus (HPV) infections, the virus causes cells to make 2 proteins known as E6 and E7. When these are made, they turn off some genes that normally help keep cell growth in check. Uncontrolled cell growth may in some cases lead to cancer. When HPV DNA is found in the tumor cells, especially in non-smokers who drink little or no alcohol, HPV is thought to be the likely cause of the cancer.

NOW to the next link:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

CONCLUSION: Increases in the population-level incidence and survival of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States since 1984 are caused by HPV infection.

NOW ARE YOU ABLE TO READ SIMPLE ENGLISH. HPV is driving the incidence of OP - NOT TOBACCO

Now to the next link: Just how many cases of OP have been identified as being infected by HPV?

www.usatoday.com...
(make sure and scroll down to read the story)

Q. How fast are HPV-related cancers growing? A. The proportion of HPV-related oral tumors has grown from 16% of all oral cancers in 1984 to 1989, to 72% of these tumors from 2000 to 2004, according to a January report from the American Cancer Society and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So lets see 72 % of OP cancers were identified to have been CAUSED by HPV! That is HPV and not tobacco!

ARE YOU GETTING IT NOW???

So now I have spent 1/2 an hour repeating my work, if your response includes one word of abuse, There will be NO future between you and I.

Tired of Control Freaks (and OccamsRazaor004)

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


1. This is correct they can not determine the cause of each individual cancer. This also means they can not determine if HPV is the cause. Having HPV, even HPV-16 does not mean you will get cancer. In fact, very few people with HPV will ever develop cancer, for most people their immune system will fight off all cancerous infections that HPV causes. So finding HPV along with cancer in no way shape or form means HPV caused that individual case of cancer. Much like with tobacco use, they look at risk factors, pick out the most likely culprit, and work from there.

HPV is thought to be the likely cause of the cancer

They can not say HPV 100% caused any single infection, just like tobacco. Funny how when it comes to tobacco you use their wording to prove tobacco is safe, yet when they say they THINK hpv is LIKELY to be the cause, you jump on board. You're a hypocrite. Both are known to cause cancer. So if you want to say tobacco doesn't cause cancer, you have to say HPV doesn't either. You'd be wrong on both accounts.

Here is an example of why. Let's suppose walking on sand causes knee problems, and also walking on gravel causes the same knee problems. If a person walks on both sand and gravel there is no way to tell WHICH was the cause, as they both are. You would like that to mean since you can't tell which caused it, it's proof walking on sand never causes knee problems. Blatantly false. When sand is most likely to cause type A knee problems, and gravel most likely to cause type B knee problems, they look at the type formed and say you have type A problems, so most likely it was the sand. It's possible the gravel did it though, so they can never say it was 100% sand. Same with cancer, they can say this is usually caused by tobacco, so we think it was tobacco, but they can never be 100% sure. I have explained this to you time and time again.

2. Now I went back to your first post to see if I made a mistake, because I swore you said oral-pharangeal. I was right, you did. Perhaps you meant oropharyngeal, which is the throat. HPV is indeed the leading cause oropharyngeal cancer. If you meant oral-pharyngeal, as in the throat AND mouth (oral), you are wrong. Tobacco is still the leading cause. HPV is a major cause of throat cancer, and a minor cause of mouth cancer. Tobacco is the major cause of mouth cancer, and a small cause of throat cancer. So if you wish to concede that tobacco causes oral cancer, and you wish to only talk about throat cancer, then I will absolutely agree, HPV is the biggest culprit. However, I find it hilarious that tobacco is STILL determined to be a cause by the very same research you are touting yet you want to scream it's harmless. You believe the research when it suits your purpose, and the research is terrible when it doesn't.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Can you put a piece of the tumor into a petri dish and cultivate tobacco out of it? But you sure can for HPV?

Actually, as I also previously posted:

HPV has at least 130 different strains that have been identified to date. Most of the strains are harmless but not all of them. It took about 20 years to identify all the strains that cause cervical cancer so that they could develop a vaccine. Properly identifying HPV in a tumor is still difficult.

How did they PROVE that HPV causes cancer?

www.washington.edu...

The UW study, published in the Aug. 8 issue of Nature, pieced together the complicated insertion of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, genome, which contains its own set of cancer genes, into Lacks’ genome near an “oncogene,” a naturally occurring gene that can cause cancer when altered. The researchers showed that the proximity of the scrambled HPV genome and the oncogene resulted in its activation, potentially explaining the aggressiveness of both Lacks’ cancer and the HeLa cell line.

This was in a sense a perfect storm of what can go wrong in a cell,” said Andrew Adey, a PhD student in genome sciences at UW and a co-first author on the study. “The HPV virus inserted into her genome in what might be the worst possible way.”

So they inserted HPV into a human cell and watched the cancer develop. That is PROOF that HPV CAUSES cancer. Not Correlation - CAUSATION!

oropharangeal cancer occurs in the middle of the throat and almost 100 % of those cancers are HPV POSITIVE.

Oral Pharangeal cancer includes cancer of the throat and the mouth. 72 % of those cancers are HPV POSITIVE

Most of the oral cancers that they consider "still linked" (but not proven) to tobacco and alcohol occur at the front of the tongue.

But research is closing in and they are still looking for other strains of HPV! This story isn't finished yet!

As alienway theorized "Could the real link between tobacco and oral-pharangeal cancer really be just because smokers have more hand-to-mouth contact than never-smokers, and therefore a greater incidence if the transmission of HPV?"

Question for you OccamsRazor004!

Why is tobacco always included with alcohol in any study related to oral-pharangeal cancer? Why have they not done a study comparing smokers who DON'T drink with those who DO drink to determine how often oral-pharangeal cancers occur in smokers versus drinkers?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


OccamsRazor004

Research into viruses as a cancer causing agent is moving very very fast right now. HPV was only confirmed as a causative cancer agent in the 1980s

www.vch.ca...

Nobel-Winning Discovery of HPV–Cervical Cancer Link Already Having an Impact on Medicine

This is a long time after anti-tobacco announced that tobacco was the CAUSE of most cancers of the mouth, throat, tongue, lung and cervix. So any study prior to 1980 DID NOT include looking for HPV.

The discovery that viruses cause cancer is a game changer! Now isn't it?

But lets not pretend that HPV didn't exist prior to 1980. So when they announce this "dramatic increase" and epidimic of oral-pharangeal cancers, we already know they they are lying!

How can they know that oral-pharangeal cancers caused by HPV have dramatically increased since the 1980s, when they have no way of knowing what the baseline incidence of HPV induced cancer is prior to 1980?????

They are trying to find a way to announce that they have discovered that cause of certain cancers without upsetting the anti-tobacco apple cart.

And they are right to do so. I truly believe that so much money and profit is at stake in anti-tobacco that research into HPV would be stopped in its tracks, if it meant exposing the anti-tobacco lie?

They only announced that cervical cancers was almost 100 % CAUSED by HPV because Big Pharma had a vaccine fully developed and could make a profit from it!!!!!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Ehhh, smoking can cause lung cancer is some people. I have done lots of research on this and it can cause DNA damage. The thing is that these cells should exhibit aptopsis and be disassembled by the body but something is stopping the damaged cells from being destroyed. Most of the cancers have nothing to do with cigarette smoke though, something else is interferring with our natural cancer fighting ability.

This can shed a little light on it, a new article. www.sciencedaily.com...

Raising the level of the APOBEC enzymes is done by the body in response to viruses and this raises our chances of getting cancer. Now a combination of this and cigarettes could be a better indicator. Don't be smoking if you get the flu shot, I just did a response on a flu shot thread today with this info.

reply to post by rickymouse


Rickymouse

DNA damage is not proof of tobacco causing cancer. As a matter of fact, the words DNA damage is prejudial. DNA changes I can accept. But we have no idea what it means.

DNA is a dynamic living thing. If it changes in response to tobacco smoke, then it also changes in response to vehical exhaust, industrial chemicals, unseen gases that we are surrounded by like formaldehyde, carpet glue fumes etc. etc etc

Perhaps these changes are the direct result of an environmental challenges and are good changes to protect our bodies from them.

We only know that changes occur and not the end result of those changes might be.

For example: most people think a cough is a bad thing. Smokers cough more and therefore it is proof that smoking is an irritant and must be avoided.

But coughing is NOT a bad thing. It is a good thing. It is the bodies way of ejecting respiratory particulate and defending the respiratory system. It is a protective mechanism. Smokers cough more. GOOD. That means that smokers are able to reject the other environmental irritatants that we are all exposed to BETTER than never-smokers.

Rickymouse, - please don't try to make this thread about anything else than what it is. They have discover the CAUSE of cancers that affect the entire respiratory system, including the lungs. They have developed vaccines against this CAUSE and research into better treatment options is ongoing.

THIS IS GOOD NEWS FOR PEOPLE but bad for anti-tobacco. What do you think would happen if smokers demand retribution for what has been done to us? What if smokers demanded their money back? And demanded to stop financially subsidizing 80 % of the population?

So lets get back to the central question:

How do they know that oral-pharangeal cancers are "dramatically increasing" since the 1980s, when they have no evidence of what the rate of oral-pharangeal cancer was BEFORE the 1980s?

Its not a scientific question. Its a question everyone can blatantly understand. The answer can't be confused with medical jargon.

No one was examining the DNA of oral-pharangeal tumors prior to the 1980s, so how do they know what the baseline rate of HPV caused oral-pharangeal cancers before the 1980s and how do they know that it is "dramatically increasing"?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Everything you said is true, I am just saying that if the improperly mutated cells are not destroyed by the body as they should they can start to take over. That means that smoking is not the actual cause of the cancer.

As for oral-pharangeal cancer, I know four people who have had this cancer, only one of them smoked. They had their esophogus removed and their stomach stretched up to the top. If three out of four of them didn't smoke, then it is evident that smoking neither positively or negatively impacts this form of cancer.

From talking to two of these people for a while, I haven't been able to find an answer. One guy had his start a couple months after he had a coughing fit from breathing cedar dust. The thing is that did the cedar dust cause it or did the dust agrevate it so that he noticed it more.

The other guy I talked to noticed that when he cut a poplar log that was being broken down by bugs that he got really hard of breathing. I do not think the histamine reaction to the breakdown chemical caused his cancer though, it was a warning that something was wrong and the airways were constricting. I didn't like his choice of self medication, he huffed some oxygen out of his torches so it would help his breathing. It did work as a temporary way of solving the problem though His cancer formed about three months later.

The first guy I mentioned, his brother also had the cancer. It is hard to know for sure what caused the cancers to start. All three of these people are still alive, I visit them occasionally. I could mention that I know four people that have this cancer.....to associate them knowing me with their oral-pharangeal cancer is about the same as saying cigarettes cause this cancer. I know lots of people, only four out of a thousand have this.

They keep blaming smoking for cancer, they should be spending more time looking for the real cause. We are exposed to carcinogens all the time. These carcinogens do cause genetic switches to change as you say, that is true. It shouldn't cause cancer though.

Though i find smoking all very pointless and those that defend it are simply addicts
reacting to a threat I will add this,
Maybe there are other factors contributing to the cancers, like GMO's which might be
reacting to the Multi-chemical compounds found in most cigarettes, or Alcohol combination?

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy


Lil Drummerboy

There are other factors. Its called HPV and there are dozens and dozens of strains of which all of them have not been identified and we also don't know what most of the actually do

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


There is however a huge difference between oropharangeal cancer and oral Cavity cancers. Even the CDC doesn't dispute that approximately half of new OPC cases are caused by HPV. OCC on the other hand is in fact caused primarily by smoking. I think you're meshing both end result and type of cancer into a scenario that points to you being correct. It's kind if line leavin a decimal out of an equation getting the wrong answer
And trumpeting it to the world at large. There are many cancers attributed to various strains of HPV but in this instance correlation isn't equitable with causation. You're not that Far off the mark but your insistence on being correct fails to allow you to accept let alone correct for error or deviation. Perhaps being more open minded to others data instead Of locking the doors and screaming neener neener I'm right you're wrong would get you a little farther along in the data stream.

reply to post by peter vlar


peter vlar:

Please re-read the thread. I have stated a number of times AND have posted link indicating that the type of cancer that occurs at the front of the tongue has not yet been linked to HPV and are still considered to be tobacco related. That there is still 28 % of oral-pharangeal that, to date, are considered to be HPV negative. I even posted a link

What else would you like me to do?

Read the original post. I have stated that despite the decrease in the smoking rate since the 1960s, there has been NO decrease in oral-pharangeal cancers. I have posted links over and over again showing that the medical community has stated that there has been a decrease is tobacco related OP cancer but that there has been a dramatic increase in HPV related cancer since the 1980s due to people having more oral sex.


The question I have posed is: how can they say that there has been a dramatic increase in HPV related oral-cancers since the 1980s due to people having more oral sex, when they don't know that the baseline rate of HPV related oral-pharangeal cancers prior to 1980s because they did not know that HPV could cause cancer before the 1980s.

Now just exactly what more do you want from me? How many times must I say the same thing only to have you pop up and say things like this?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by peter vlar

 

peter vlar:

Please re-read the thread. I have stated a number of times AND have posted link indicating that the type of cancer that occurs at the front of the tongue has not yet been linked to HPV and are still considered to be tobacco related. That there is still 28 % of oral-pharangeal that, to date, are considered to be HPV negative. I even posted a link

What else would you like me to do?

Read the original post. I have stated that despite the decrease in the smoking rate since the 1960s, there has been NO decrease in oral-pharangeal cancers. I have posted links over and over again showing that the medical community has stated that there has been a decrease is tobacco related OP cancer but that there has been a dramatic increase in HPV related cancer since the 1980s due to people having more oral sex.

according to the data you linked and other articles I've read the number of heavy smokers, 20 cigarettes or more per day has decreased. it doesn't actually mean that they've all quit smoking, they've simply cut back to less than a pack per day. the carcinogens still damage DNA whether its 1/3 a pack or 2 packs. it's pretty much cherry picking data to fit the context you wish to present. as for what else I'd have you do... take your own advice and read over the data your quoting a few more times.

[The question I have posed is: how can they say that there has been a dramatic increase in HPV related oral-cancers since the 1980s due to people having more oral sex, when they don't know that the baseline rate of HPV related oral-pharangeal cancers prior to 1980s because they did not know that HPV could cause cancer before the 1980s.

OK... Since the 80's means just what it says, since 1980 or after thus data from before 1980 is irrelevant. it doesn't say since 1965. that means the base year for the data is 1980 and they then track the data from that point forward.

Now just exactly what more do you want from me? How many times must I say the same thing only to have you pop up and say things like this?

Tired of Control Freaks

Until you start making sense

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter Vlar

1. Just because they call a cancer "tobacco-related" does not mean that smoking actually caused the cancer. It really means that they don't know what caused the cancer but since that cancer occurs more in smokers then never-smokers, they assume that the cancer was caused by smoking!

2. If this isn't making sense to you - go talk to the anti-smokers. They are the ones saying it. I am just pointing out how stupid and clumsy their lies are.

Right now the way it stands, it all comes down to this:

3. in the 1960s and 1970s, epidemiology found that oral-pharangeal cancers occurred more in smoker than non-smokers. Seven times more. They decided that this correlation really meant causation and started putting pictures in ads and on our cigarette pictures of people with holes in their throat to let people know that oral-pharangeal cancers was caused by smoking.

4. Based on this information as well as other cancer scares, people started quitting smoking in droves.

5. |n the 1980s, a scientist proved that the certain strains of HPV caused cancer.

6. Today, almost 50 years later, the rate of smoking in the population is about 25 %. But the incidence rate of oral-pharangeal cancer has not decreased. The medical community now announces that 72 % of all oral-pharangeal cancers is now caused by HPV. This is proven by being able to find fragments of HPV in the tumors. They have as yet, been unable to find the strain of HPV that causes cancers at the front of the tongue. Therefore, they continue to blame HPV negative oral-pharangeal cancer as be caused by cancer.

7. They have yet to prove that smoking causes any cancer. The only evidence still only consists of epidemiology, a soft social science that can be used to highlight correlation but should not be confused as proof of causation.

8. The medical community announces that HPV positive oral-pharangeal cancers have increased dramatically since the 1980s but never mention that they have no baseline rate for the incidence of HPV positive cancer before 1980s.

This is the sequence of events. These are the facts.

If they don't make sense to you...well the only way it makes sense to me is to assume they are lying because they don't want to announce that smoking DOES NOT cause oral-pharangeal cancers and they were wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaksSo they inserted HPV into a human cell and watched the cancer develop. That is PROOF that HPV CAUSES cancer. Not Correlation - CAUSATION!

They did the same with Tobacco products. Look at Goldkorn's research where cells exposed to cigarette smoke became cancerous. Yet you dismiss that as worthless, because you are a Control Freak. Only you control when something should be relevant.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Why is tobacco always included with alcohol in any study related to oral-pharangeal cancer? Why have they not done a study comparing smokers who DON'T drink with those who DO drink to determine how often oral-pharangeal cancers occur in smokers versus drinkers?

Tired of Control Freaks

Why are you lying saying they haven't? They have, and both smoking and drinking contribute to oral cancer differently. You are either extremely ignorant of the subject because you only care about finding things that try and support your position rather than simply research facts, or you know the facts and you are lying out your ass. Which is it?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Smoking and drinking are independently and synergistically associated with an increased risk of oral cancer, and the risks tend to increase with an increased frequency of exposure.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Peter Vlar

1. Just because they call a cancer "tobacco-related" does not mean that smoking actually caused the cancer. It really means that they don't know what caused the cancer but since that cancer occurs more in smokers then never-smokers, they assume that the cancer was caused by smoking!

Wrong, it means there is a relationship. If we assume that 100% of all cells turning cancerous is caused by HPV, but a trigger is needed in order for the cancerous cells to become "cancer", and smoking is that trigger that allows the cells to become a tumour, wouldn't you say that is tobacco related? Since if they did not smoke that person would be alive still. Now the fact is smoking does cause cancer, there are many forms of cancer and it may only be a primary relationship in some forms.

3. in the 1960s and 1970s, epidemiology found that oral-pharangeal cancers occurred more in smoker than non-smokers. Seven times more. They decided that this correlation really meant causation and started putting pictures in ads and on our cigarette pictures of people with holes in their throat to let people know that oral-pharangeal cancers was caused by smoking.

Again, assuming tobacco doesn't cause the cancer, but it occurs more in smokers due to a mechanism unique to smoking, who cares? If we find out tomorrow alcohol doesn't cause any of the problems associated with it, instead it's a parasite that lives in all alcohol, should we then consider 50 drinks a day as alright because alcohol itself doesn't cause problems?

4. Based on this information as well as other cancer scares, people started quitting smoking in droves.

5. |n the 1980s, a scientist proved that the certain strains of HPV caused cancer.

6. Today, almost 50 years later, the rate of smoking in the population is about 25 %. But the incidence rate of oral-pharangeal cancer has not decreased. The medical community now announces that 72 % of all oral-pharangeal cancers is now caused by HPV. This is proven by being able to find fragments of HPV in the tumors. They have as yet, been unable to find the strain of HPV that causes cancers at the front of the tongue. Therefore, they continue to blame HPV negative oral-pharangeal cancer as be caused by cancer.

Or there is no strain that causes that cancer? The rate of SMOKING has gone down. The rate of SMOKELESS tobacco (such as chewing tobacco) has gone up in the past 10 years. I don't know and couldn't find the use over the last 50 years.

7. They have yet to prove that smoking causes any cancer. The only evidence still only consists of epidemiology, a soft social science that can be used to highlight correlation but should not be confused as proof of causation.

Blatantly false. Exposing cells to cig smoke causes them to become cancerous. Proven 100%. Stop lying. I already linked one study proving it.

8. The medical community announces that HPV positive oral-pharangeal cancers have increased dramatically since the 1980s but never mention that they have no baseline rate for the incidence of HPV positive cancer before 1980s.

HPV and non-HPV oral cancers are very different. So using that difference a baseline can be generated.

This is the sequence of events. These are the facts.

If they don't make sense to you...well the only way it makes sense to me is to assume they are lying because they don't want to announce that smoking DOES NOT cause oral-pharangeal cancers and they were wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks

No, that is the sequence of events with you turning them from facts into lies by your adding in your beliefs.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Well then OccamsRazor04 - we are going to have to agree to disagree!

I am fairly confident that new information will be coming soon.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Well then OccamsRazor04 - we are going to have to agree to disagree!

I am fairly confident that new information will be coming soon.

Tired of Control Freaks

When all is said and done, the question to ask is, "Does moderate smoking convey more heath benefits than it takes?" When the overall heath of the population is analysed. The shock and horror of the answer may indeed be yes! Then why all the anti smoking hype? Could it possibly be that Big Pharma. want to sell and regulate the sale of Nicotine? and reap the financial benefits of a population that can no longer buy the weed, to self medicate? www.sott.net...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Well then OccamsRazor04 - we are going to have to agree to disagree!

I am fairly confident that new information will be coming soon.

Tired of Control Freaks

www.sott.net... I'm of the mind to ask , "Does moderate smoking give more health benefits than it denies?" If so, then smokers are self medicating for a host of diseases, which if Big Pharma had the control of Nicotine would reap them massive financial rewards. Diseases of Obesity ,Altzhimers and Parkinsons to name but three.