Then pehaps you happen to fall into the percentage of people who don't have cancer and won't likely get it from smoking. Good for you. Are you going to try and state that just because you didn't suffer any affects or that your kids don't then the statistics are all lies being spread by the evil liberals?
You will believe what you want to believe which is your right to.
NEWSFLASH: I've had cancer TWICE in my life followed by two major surgery's AND chemo and radioactive iodine treatments.
I had a team of Doctors each time. They ask me if I smoked and how much. Guess what? All of them told me that my cancers were NOT caused from smoking.
Any other ideas????????????!!!!!!!!!!
Statistics can and are manipulated on a daily basis to fit any and all agenda.
Increased relative risks (RR) in epidemiology below 200% are considered statistically insignificant, and quite possibly just due to chance within the studies. Using an increased risk for lung cancer (since we are discussing smoking) would you be more inclined to worry about a 65% increased RR or a 19% RR from the ingestion and/or exposure of 2 different substances?
The answer must be "yes", if you are prepared to call the WHO of the U.N. who set out to prove your "suspicion" "evil liberals", LOL!
Even they were unable to risk what little credibility they had by doctoring the decades long study results!