I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

Slows down my Parkinson's tremors, recommended by my neurologist along with drinking coffee and alcohol

a reply to: dfnj2015


Ummm...smokers are hackers too...





YouSir

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No you are mistaken

Everything you believe about smoking is the result of an epidimioloigcal study. This is the type of study where you typically have 2 or 3 groups of people and try to quantify characteristics of each group (ie smokers have heart attacks more than non-smokers) and use statistical analysis to determine if the difference is statistically significant or not.

The problem is that epidimiology is a soft branch of science. It is to be used to identify observations which may have clinical significance is identified, hard science is used to identify what caused the difference ( smoking, culture,exposure to vaccinations, etc etc.)

In the case of smoking, although the differences are pronounced to be "significant" and "robust" and "shocking", there is not one ounce of hard evidence (even after 60 years of looking) that proves that smoking causes anything.

For example:

We are told that smoking CAUSES oral-phangeal cancers. Following anti-smoking campaigns when people quit smoking in droves, it could be expected that oral-phangeal cancers would be reduced. In fact, the incidence of those cancers increased.

It turns out that smoking does NOT cause oral-pharangeal cancers. Such cancers are caused by HPV.

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

Cervical cancers are another example of a cancer that was blamed on smoking that in fact, was caused by HPV.

So what does that say about what you "think" you know about smoking?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Cervical cancers are another example of a cancer that was blamed on smoking

Those women been smoking them wrong.

Also, got a source for that? I’m genuinely interested.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Google human pappiloma virus.

You will find some outrage over rick perry trying to mandate the immunization in texas.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Ill have to come back when im not on mobile. But the stuff i mention is a result of studying the biological impact on human subjects.

I smoked cigarettes for 12 years. Thankfully, I quit.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I meant the smoking causes cervical cancer part.

Only thing I’ve ever seen is it “may be a cofactor” and “could increase the risk of”. I’ve never seen anywhere saying smoking is a direct cause of cervical cancer.

originally posted by: nightbringr
Kid, you're going to put an eye out with that thing!

At least you got the humor.

Sorry bro

a reply to: Lysergic
That was awesome! Can I have another?

a reply to: neo96

I felt the need to take it a step further.

Here's the background if anyone wants it lol.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He also created the first anti-smoking campaign, if I remember correctly.

and yet people should have the right to put poison in their bodies, and I'm tired of those wishing to legislate away the rights of others.

a reply to: TerryDon79

That was just correlation becoming falsely attributed as causation.

Not all medical research is actually scientific. P-hacking is more prevalent than is commonly admitted.

originally posted by: neo96
I just lit one up out of spite.

Ditto.

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
and yet people should have the right to put poison in their bodies, and I'm tired of those wishing to legislate away the rights of others.

Ban the whole #ing lot I say!
Cigarettes, coffee, Aspirin, Anusol, everything!

If I can't have fun with the lovely Mandy I shouldn't be able to have any fun at all!

a reply to: TerryDon79

please be more specific. what source are you asking for?

a reply to: TerryDon79

The source of the story of cervical cancer and smoking is explained in detail here:

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

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

yes - please do share your information. I would be very interested.


For your information, there was a court case in the UK. The typical man sueing cause he got lung cancer. He lost, of course. but what was interesting is that experts testified for an against smoking being the cause of lung cancer. This is nothing new but what was interesting is that the experts for the plaintiff included the researchers who first proposed that smoking caused lung cancer.

The case took place in 2004. Since the anti-smoking campaigns first started in the 1950s and 1960s, you would think that scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer would be well advanced. What is also interesting is the testimoney of the witnesses for the defense.

The case lays bare all the "evidence" that smoking causes lung cancer and all the evidence that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Including epidimiology and biological studies.

Justice Nimmo Smith ruled in the case of McTear v. Imperial Tobacco that the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer amounted to "because we say it does".