JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I have seen no unbias evidence that it does ,have you? If you have lets see it! It is the mainstream scientific position. Do you really believe that scientists who've produced the research have managed to pull the wool over peoples eyes? Have you ever heard of peer reviewed scientific journals? Anyway this took me 30 seconds to find: ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 22:02 ---------- Evidence please now you have plenty of time on your hands ,at the expense of the tax payer. What are you on about at the expense of the tax payer? As I said it's lovely, and a blessing to be in the situation to have the option to do it. My mortgage etc are paid without any handouts. Edited January 22, 2015 by JFKvsNixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Alice,do you under stand the difference between the BBC telling you something and actual evidence lol. The ancient Greeks used to believe redheads turned into vampires when they died.It wasn't true but it didn't stop the believers,despite there not being a shred of evidence. ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 22:03 ---------- It is the mainstream scientific position. Do you really believe that scientists who've produced the research have managed to pull the wool over peoples eyes? Have you ever heard of peer reviewed scientific journals? Anyway this took me 30 seconds to find: ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 22:02 ---------- What are you on about at the expense of the tax payer? I manage to pay my mortgage etc without any handouts. You seem to be struggling with this evidence.I wonder why? please don't quote govement sites,independant and unbias please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Alice,do you under stand the difference between the BBC telling you something and actual evidence lol. The ancient Greeks used to believe redheads turned into vampires when they died.It wasn't true but it didn't stop the believers,despite there not being a shred of evidence. You seem to be struggling with this evidence.I wonder why? What evidence would that be, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You seem to be struggling with this evidence.I wonder why? please don't quote govement sites,independant and unbias please. I've given you some evidence, it was in the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehunt Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 According to the WHO, smoking related illness cannot be proven to be accurate. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 please don't quote govement sites,independant and unbias please. What? I have no idea what you are on about. Actually, please don't elaborate. It's all baloney. Another troll for the 'Ignore' list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 " Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement. The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 According to the WHO, smoking related illness cannot be proven to be accurate. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm The WHO have claimed that their report was misquoted, here is their up to date stance on passive smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) According to the WHO, smoking related illness cannot be proven to be accurate. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm This is mischievous in several ways. First, it is an American study based (for spurious reasons) only on white males. Think this one through. Why is that not a useful sample? Second, the title (Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer!) is misleading and sensationalist. What the article admits is that there is an established and significant statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer (enough to suggest a causal relationship), but (he claims) it is less than it is popularly perceived to be. Vague and wishy washy! Third, it focuses only on lung cancer. There are many other smoking-related cancers and other diseases (heart disease,COPD, strokes, emphysema, vascular disease, angina, asthma, pneumonia, chronic bronchitis) which cause premature death. Anyone who doubts that smoking is harmful to health should just shadow a GP or throracic surgeon for a day or two. You will soon be disabused of your doubts. Edited January 22, 2015 by aliceBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehunt Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The WHO have claimed that their report was misquoted, here is their up to date stance on passive smoking. It is a curious point though JFK. Our leaders of medicine have changed their minds so much over the years, its no wonder people doubt their conclusions. Im sure we all know some elderly person who lived to 95, yet smoked all their lives. Who is right? Can they be sure? Even the WHO cant seem to agree with themselves, not just on this issue either. ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 22:23 ---------- This is mischievous in several ways. First, it is an American study based (for spurious reasons) only on white males. Think this one through. Why is that not a useful sample? Second, the title (Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer!) is misleading and sensationalist. What the article admits is that there is an established and significant statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer (enough to suggest a causal relationship), but (he claims) it is less than it is popularly perceived to be. Vague and wishy washy! Third, it focuses only on lung cancer. There are many other smoking-related cancers and other diseases (heart disease,COPD, strokes, emphysema, vascular disease, angina, asthma, pneumonia, chronic bronchitis) which cause premature death. Anyone who doubts that smoking is harmful to health should just shadow a GP or throracic surgeon for a day or two. You will soon be disabused of your doubts. Yes, very well put across Alice, but there cannot be a 100% cast iron guarantee that smoking is as harmful as suggested to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now