“Of course lets not bring Lung Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, or the plethora of other diseases where the increased risk of developing due to smoking is hundreds of times that of the non smoker “
That simply is not true.
Pancreatic, colon, and breast cancer deaths are lower among smokers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brimelow1.html
Here’s another little article to stimulate conversation.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford’s cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality “can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking.” Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn’t!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
“Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself”.
There’s more at the link.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are on crack if you believe that!
If you smoke you are 2-3 times more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than non-smoker. You are pushing aids denier nonsense if you are claiming otherwise.
That simply is not true.