This is possibly the most mind bending question possible. The answer is no! Much how the anti-smoking adds promote smoking in the rebelious souls of youth, telling the anti-smokers that you are okay with their persecution only infurates them and causes them to ruthlessly retaliate with more anti-smoking adds.
Smoking causes a high RISK of cancer. you fool.. The same as constantly sunbathing increases RISK of skin cancer - that isn't to say that all sun worshippers are going to get skin cancer!..
On the contrary (yet again). You believe smoking causes a high risk of cancer because you have been told it does. Set aside what you've been told, and go in search of the so called evidence. You will find none. Fool ;-)
So all doctors have been brainwashed!? Do you question every decision your doctors make, if they said you need to exercise more would you say.. No I don't.. if they said you need to eat more fibre.. would you so no.. but wait.. they say stop smoking and because you are addicted to it.. you sit at home and make a video!. saddo
@HairyChestnuts, good to know that you regard someone with years of medical training with such esteem.. do you regard all professional the same? what do you do for a living, aside from make smug videos
Lets see some of your videos then. Oh sorry, I forgot. You only set up your youtube channel for the purpose of anonomously posting silly rubbish on other peoples videos. You obviously have an empty life, if your only enjoyment is abusing those that dare to think for themselves.
@HairyChestnuts Just because I've a. just sent up and account, and B I don't post videos means doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my view.. unless of course you are trying to limit the freedoms of people posting on the internet... come on HC I thought you were all about freedom!
@HairyChestnuts If I have an empty life because I happen to post a comment, then I do wonder about your life, since you made the video and are now commenting back to my comments! haha.. I'd say it was YOU who had no life..
I stand up for everyones freedom (even yours). And I welcome your comments because they aid my cause greatly. Every anti that has allowed himself to be dragged into a comment match has succeeded only in exposing the weakness of their arguments. And the boost to my video ratings is an added bonus. Every comment is a point for me ;-)
@HairyChestnuts you are saying it's impossible to show that smoking has caused any illness, any cancer, it's impossible to show smoking increases the risks of those diseases, it's impossible to show that shortens life expectancy? impossible to show that it increases risk of heart disease? all impossible to show?
It is impossible to prove the existance of that which does not exist. Over fifty years of attempting to prove smoking causes any of these things, all such research has failed. The only factor upon which we must base our decisions is evidence. Where such evidence is lacking we must rely on probability. And as pointed out, the probability of risk has decreased with each failed attempt at finding evidence of risk.
@HairyChestnuts I'd just like to clarify also that even if someone died and it was written on their death cert.. death caused by smoking? you wouldn't accept that as proof.. cos so far you seem to not accept evidence that proof exists or doesn't exist.. It actually feels like you don't want to debate this, you have made your mind up.
Writing "cause of death: smoking" is not proof, no more than writing "cause of death: dancing". Someone may slip over and break their neck while dancing, but dancing is not the cause of death. The broken neck was. Likewise someone might develop cancer while smoking, but smoking is not the cause of death (nor can it be proven to be the cause of cancer). Just as non smokers can develop cancer while not smoking, we would not write "cause of death: not smoking".
@HairyChestnuts So you are saying, if someone contracted cancer from smoking, and then died of cancer (caused by smoking) you don't think that's an important indication that smoking is linked to cancer?
No, I'm saying if someone contracted cancer (and happened to be a smoker), then died of cancer, that only demonstrates the danger of cancer. It does not prove smoking caused it.
@HairyChestnuts.. if we are in the territory of there is no proof that smoking causes cancer.. and everything causes cancer to a certain extent.. then surely it's prudent to minimise the risks?
If I knew eating coal would increase my risks of cancer, I would not eat coal or as much as I normally do.. why is smoking different?
If you knew eating coal would increase your risk of cancer, then fine. But (not that you would eat coal anyway) how can you know something, if there is no proof to support such a belief. Hundreds of years ago, people "knew" the world was flat and feared sailing off the edge of it. Despite repeated insistance from the church that the world was flat, a brave and intelectual minority refused to accept such absurdity without proof, and set off to uncover the truth.
Since when have health officials said that cancer was caused ONLY by smoking?
"you can't prove that smoking causes cancer... it probably doesn't.. but that's besides the point.. "haha I like the way you slipped in. "it probably doesn't" if there is no proof you can't say it probably doesn't. You can't say it probably does either. If there is no proof, you fool!
No one can prove the Loch Ness monster exists after decades of trying, so it PROBABLY doesn't. No one can prove smoking causes cancer after decades of trying, so it PROBABLY doesn't. You obviously don't understand such simple logic. Too busy believing fairies live down your garden despite being unable to prove it.
It is impossible to prove a negative. Only a positive. If something is proven to exist, then we can freely accept it. If such proof cannot be found despite repeated attempts, then with each failed search for evidence, the probability of it's existance decreases.
As I said, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is NO proof that wearing clothes is 100% harmless, would you advocate compulsory nudity to avoid an unproven risk from clothes?
Probably not. The burden of proof is on the positive. By that I'm refering to positivly proving that smoking causes harm. Such proof has yet to be discovered. And as I already pointed out, the more such searches for proof fail, the less probable such harm becomes.
Had the animal studies conducted by exposing lab rats to intense levels of smoke their entire natural lives managed to induce cancer. That would have been a start in the right direction. However, the opposite occured. Not only were no cancers caused, but also the smoking rats actually lived longer than their non smoking counterparts. The same thing occured with other annimals. Why is it, that something so beneficial to animals, is supposed to be so toxic to humans?
Not that I doubt what you are saying, but if smoking is so incredible, if it's the best thing since the proverbial slice brown stuff, why is it banned, why are there health warnings, etc.. and please don't give me the "cos a big pharma wants to make money" line, because MORE money could be made unbanning smoking, and dropping the health warnings, producing more fags, selling it to children legally and promoting it through TV and magazines.. If it was soo great.. why is none of that happening?
Obvious. The same reason the EU wants to restrict all herbal medicines. You cannot pattent nature. And nobody will spend money on rubbish chemical remedies, if they re-learn the old knowledge that nature provides for free. Smoking was valued for its medicinal properties for centuries. And it will be again. That would explain why I've managed to reach 43 without ever being sick (apart from the ocasional hangover).
No, read again. I said it's the same reason as the EUs desired restrictrion on herbal medicines, not because of. Incidently, smoking bans make big money for both pharmacutical and tobacco companies alike. So called "big tobacco" don't care who buys their tobacco or what they do with it. Where do you think the nicotine in pharmas patches and gums comes from.
@HairyChestnuts I understand that.. What I'm getting at is.. if there is no evidence that smoking causes any illness, if it's all hunky dory.. then surely more money can be made by lowers or scrapping the age restriction, selling to children..hey even babys! that would be cool.. lifting the smoking ban.. infact if it's so healthy for everyone, why no impose a compulsory requirement that everyone must smoke to improve your health.. you know, like 5 day .. 5 fags a day.. good one..
Are so really so blind to the obvious. I've already explained this once. If the health benefits of tobacco become public knowledge, then the government would lose it's power to tax and regulate it. We could all grow our own natural pure tobacco in our own gardens and the government, the tobacco companies and the pharmaciutical industry would lose out. How can any of them make big money if we can grow it ourselves for free?
@HairyChestnuts So what you are saying is.. that the big tabacco and pharma companys are keeping secret the incredible health benefits of tabacco in order to extract the healthy bits out and sell them back to us in a drug. And they do this because they don't want us growing a cure for cancer in our back gardens.. wow!
Not so much the cure for cancer, but rather a possible cure for anything. Aspirin replaced willow bark because growing willow trees is awkard. But tobacco and many other herbs need only a window box or a few pots. A single greenhouse could supply a local herbalist with a wide variety of natural medicines. Who would need drugs, when we have nature.
@HairyChestnuts I agree with what your saying, althou I think your methods leave a lot to be desired, patronising and insulting people isn't goint to win anyone over.. talking to people about the medicinal property of tabacco is more interesting than listening to your bias rhetoric about smoking laws!
@HairyChestnuts It doesn't sound half as far fetched as I originally thought it would when you say it so logically like that..
so all of this.. wanting to smoke in pubs is just smoke screen then, what you really want to do is overturn the large pharma companys.. the pubs are just a red herring..
Smoking in pubs should be up to pub owners. Not the government, not you, and not me. If all property owners are free to choose for themselves, then I have won, even if they choose to remain smoke free.
@HairyChestnuts. The problem I have on smoking pubs is that I believe, and you can't prove otherwise that smoking is harmful.. and like any working environment there is a duty of law to protect the worker and the customer. Now if you wanted a smokers pub
Two companies getting rich at tax payers expence, and all the while stamping out the prospect of researching the possibility of tobacco being a natural and therefore free medicine. If it's curative properties became public knowledge, then the governments would have no justification in taxing it. We could grow our own herbs in our gardens and the government, the big tobacco companies, and the pharmacutical industry would all lose money.
@HairyChestnuts So what you're saying is..that the pharm companys and the big tabacco companies are stopping serious research into the medicinal uses of nicotine, because they are trying to get everyone to give up.
Pharma are doing their own research on tobacco, for the purpose of isolating and extracting the various curative properties it has. Slowing the onset of Parkinsons disease, releaving Altziemers, and even skin anti aging creams are based on tobacco extracts. And this without the additional benefits from active smoking. Remember the animal experiments that demonstrated a reduced chance of developing cancer (and long gevity) amonst smoking animals.
They are selling more tobacco. Both smoking rates increase wherever bans are introduced, and the pharma companies buy tobacco too so they can extract the nicotine from it. That's why tobacco company share prices have increased.
@HairyChestnuts I've got loads of friends who are your age and haven't been ill! they are non-smokers. hardly proof... which, again, you say there isn't any.
@HairyChestnuts "Smoking was valued for its medicinal properties for centuries" todays cigarettes are completely different from those made hundreds of years ago.. I can't really talk about the medicinal qualities of a cigarette unless you have proof.. if you had proof that smoking was good for you.. then how come doctors aren't advocating it..
Anyway, I am going to give up tobacco, alcohol, meat and go to the gym every day, then I can die from good health. By the way, would any anti smokers like to come and see my carbon footprint? - it has steel toecaps!
I know all about every type of cancer and heart failure, everybody dies from them if something else doesn't get them first. It is the body ageing. OK, have to admit that fate, and possibly lifestyle can make a person 'age' quicker. I also know however that on average 0.3% of smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, and most are over 60. So what is old?
So she was diagnosed with lung infection Even went to the hospital Photo's and the lot She was admitted to hospital and got huge amounts of antibiotics in oct 1998 Went home in nov Did not feel well at all It took them until march 1999 to find out Lung cancer By that time no cure was possible and she died in may . 63 years old
As I understand it, the risk of getting cancer is more genetic than anything else, i.e. if one or both parents suffered early in life, that increases your chances greatly.
The same goes for risk of heart attack.
Look at Labour MP David Taylor - marathon runner and avid campaigner for the smoking ban. Dropped dead on Boxing Day taking a walk. He was 63.
@mervintoot In to secure better diangoses for non smokers, the health authorities would have to publicly aknowledge that they don't know much about cancer at all. But this would alert people to the obvious question, what have they been blowing all their research money on?
Likely a huge COVERUP for above-ground nuclear testing of the 50s! As long as they can divert attention to those "dirty smokers" no one will look for the REAL cause!
They have weak immune systems too, germ fears make that happen too, alot of things are not nearly as easily airborne and harmfull as they say things are.
"I can live with that, can you?"
This is possibly the most mind bending question possible. The answer is no! Much how the anti-smoking adds promote smoking in the rebelious souls of youth, telling the anti-smokers that you are okay with their persecution only infurates them and causes them to ruthlessly retaliate with more anti-smoking adds.
(By the by, love these videos.)
onionknight777 1 month ago
Smoking causes a high RISK of cancer. you fool.. The same as constantly sunbathing increases RISK of skin cancer - that isn't to say that all sun worshippers are going to get skin cancer!..
Random10538 2 years ago
On the contrary (yet again). You believe smoking causes a high risk of cancer because you have been told it does. Set aside what you've been told, and go in search of the so called evidence. You will find none. Fool ;-)
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts, From what I've read, it doesn't change my views. I believe what I believe because I've read both sides.
Random10538 2 years ago
Both sides of what. Truth takes no side, it is only truth.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
So all doctors have been brainwashed!? Do you question every decision your doctors make, if they said you need to exercise more would you say.. No I don't.. if they said you need to eat more fibre.. would you so no.. but wait.. they say stop smoking and because you are addicted to it.. you sit at home and make a video!. saddo
Random10538 2 years ago
On the contrary, I don't go to doctors. Why should I, I'm never ill. But if I was, I wouldn't waste my time on them fools.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts, good to know that you regard someone with years of medical training with such esteem.. do you regard all professional the same? what do you do for a living, aside from make smug videos
Random10538 2 years ago
Lets see some of your videos then. Oh sorry, I forgot. You only set up your youtube channel for the purpose of anonomously posting silly rubbish on other peoples videos. You obviously have an empty life, if your only enjoyment is abusing those that dare to think for themselves.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts Just because I've a. just sent up and account, and B I don't post videos means doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my view.. unless of course you are trying to limit the freedoms of people posting on the internet... come on HC I thought you were all about freedom!
Random10538 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts If I have an empty life because I happen to post a comment, then I do wonder about your life, since you made the video and are now commenting back to my comments! haha.. I'd say it was YOU who had no life..
Random10538 2 years ago
I stand up for everyones freedom (even yours). And I welcome your comments because they aid my cause greatly. Every anti that has allowed himself to be dragged into a comment match has succeeded only in exposing the weakness of their arguments. And the boost to my video ratings is an added bonus. Every comment is a point for me ;-)
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts I see that you have not denied that smoking isn't 100% harmless...
Random10538 2 years ago
Read my other post.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts you are saying it's impossible to show that smoking has caused any illness, any cancer, it's impossible to show smoking increases the risks of those diseases, it's impossible to show that shortens life expectancy? impossible to show that it increases risk of heart disease? all impossible to show?
Random10538 2 years ago
It is impossible to prove the existance of that which does not exist. Over fifty years of attempting to prove smoking causes any of these things, all such research has failed. The only factor upon which we must base our decisions is evidence. Where such evidence is lacking we must rely on probability. And as pointed out, the probability of risk has decreased with each failed attempt at finding evidence of risk.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts I'd just like to clarify also that even if someone died and it was written on their death cert.. death caused by smoking? you wouldn't accept that as proof.. cos so far you seem to not accept evidence that proof exists or doesn't exist.. It actually feels like you don't want to debate this, you have made your mind up.
Random10538 2 years ago
Writing "cause of death: smoking" is not proof, no more than writing "cause of death: dancing". Someone may slip over and break their neck while dancing, but dancing is not the cause of death. The broken neck was. Likewise someone might develop cancer while smoking, but smoking is not the cause of death (nor can it be proven to be the cause of cancer). Just as non smokers can develop cancer while not smoking, we would not write "cause of death: not smoking".
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts So you are saying, if someone contracted cancer from smoking, and then died of cancer (caused by smoking) you don't think that's an important indication that smoking is linked to cancer?
Random10538 2 years ago
No, I'm saying if someone contracted cancer (and happened to be a smoker), then died of cancer, that only demonstrates the danger of cancer. It does not prove smoking caused it.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts ok.. don't you believe that cancer has a cause? or do you think that cancer is a bit of a lottery.. nothing causes it..
Random10538 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts.. if we are in the territory of there is no proof that smoking causes cancer.. and everything causes cancer to a certain extent.. then surely it's prudent to minimise the risks?
If I knew eating coal would increase my risks of cancer, I would not eat coal or as much as I normally do.. why is smoking different?
Random10538 2 years ago
If you knew eating coal would increase your risk of cancer, then fine. But (not that you would eat coal anyway) how can you know something, if there is no proof to support such a belief. Hundreds of years ago, people "knew" the world was flat and feared sailing off the edge of it. Despite repeated insistance from the church that the world was flat, a brave and intelectual minority refused to accept such absurdity without proof, and set off to uncover the truth.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Since when have health officials said that cancer was caused ONLY by smoking?
"you can't prove that smoking causes cancer... it probably doesn't.. but that's besides the point.. "haha I like the way you slipped in. "it probably doesn't" if there is no proof you can't say it probably doesn't. You can't say it probably does either. If there is no proof, you fool!
Random10538 2 years ago
No one can prove the Loch Ness monster exists after decades of trying, so it PROBABLY doesn't. No one can prove smoking causes cancer after decades of trying, so it PROBABLY doesn't. You obviously don't understand such simple logic. Too busy believing fairies live down your garden despite being unable to prove it.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts
if you can't prove it..
it doesn't exist or not exist. there is no "probably"
you can only have a "probably" if you have proof.. and you have no proof!..
Schrodinger's Cat..
PS I don't believe or not believe in the loch ness or fairys.. I don't have proof either way.. do you?
Random10538 2 years ago
It is impossible to prove a negative. Only a positive. If something is proven to exist, then we can freely accept it. If such proof cannot be found despite repeated attempts, then with each failed search for evidence, the probability of it's existance decreases.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts. There is no proof that smoking is 100% harmless.
Random10538 2 years ago
As I said, it is impossible to prove a negative. There is NO proof that wearing clothes is 100% harmless, would you advocate compulsory nudity to avoid an unproven risk from clothes?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts.. So smoking is harmfull.
Random10538 2 years ago
Probably not. The burden of proof is on the positive. By that I'm refering to positivly proving that smoking causes harm. Such proof has yet to be discovered. And as I already pointed out, the more such searches for proof fail, the less probable such harm becomes.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts what would constitute proof to you?
Random10538 2 years ago
Had the animal studies conducted by exposing lab rats to intense levels of smoke their entire natural lives managed to induce cancer. That would have been a start in the right direction. However, the opposite occured. Not only were no cancers caused, but also the smoking rats actually lived longer than their non smoking counterparts. The same thing occured with other annimals. Why is it, that something so beneficial to animals, is supposed to be so toxic to humans?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Not that I doubt what you are saying, but if smoking is so incredible, if it's the best thing since the proverbial slice brown stuff, why is it banned, why are there health warnings, etc.. and please don't give me the "cos a big pharma wants to make money" line, because MORE money could be made unbanning smoking, and dropping the health warnings, producing more fags, selling it to children legally and promoting it through TV and magazines.. If it was soo great.. why is none of that happening?
Random10538 2 years ago
Obvious. The same reason the EU wants to restrict all herbal medicines. You cannot pattent nature. And nobody will spend money on rubbish chemical remedies, if they re-learn the old knowledge that nature provides for free. Smoking was valued for its medicinal properties for centuries. And it will be again. That would explain why I've managed to reach 43 without ever being sick (apart from the ocasional hangover).
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts So you are saying it's because of EU restrictions on herbal medicines?
Random10538 2 years ago
No, read again. I said it's the same reason as the EUs desired restrictrion on herbal medicines, not because of. Incidently, smoking bans make big money for both pharmacutical and tobacco companies alike. So called "big tobacco" don't care who buys their tobacco or what they do with it. Where do you think the nicotine in pharmas patches and gums comes from.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts I understand that.. What I'm getting at is.. if there is no evidence that smoking causes any illness, if it's all hunky dory.. then surely more money can be made by lowers or scrapping the age restriction, selling to children..hey even babys! that would be cool.. lifting the smoking ban.. infact if it's so healthy for everyone, why no impose a compulsory requirement that everyone must smoke to improve your health.. you know, like 5 day .. 5 fags a day.. good one..
Random10538 2 years ago
Are so really so blind to the obvious. I've already explained this once. If the health benefits of tobacco become public knowledge, then the government would lose it's power to tax and regulate it. We could all grow our own natural pure tobacco in our own gardens and the government, the tobacco companies and the pharmaciutical industry would lose out. How can any of them make big money if we can grow it ourselves for free?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts So what you are saying is.. that the big tabacco and pharma companys are keeping secret the incredible health benefits of tabacco in order to extract the healthy bits out and sell them back to us in a drug. And they do this because they don't want us growing a cure for cancer in our back gardens.. wow!
Random10538 2 years ago
Not so much the cure for cancer, but rather a possible cure for anything. Aspirin replaced willow bark because growing willow trees is awkard. But tobacco and many other herbs need only a window box or a few pots. A single greenhouse could supply a local herbalist with a wide variety of natural medicines. Who would need drugs, when we have nature.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts I agree with what your saying, althou I think your methods leave a lot to be desired, patronising and insulting people isn't goint to win anyone over.. talking to people about the medicinal property of tabacco is more interesting than listening to your bias rhetoric about smoking laws!
Random10538 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts It doesn't sound half as far fetched as I originally thought it would when you say it so logically like that..
so all of this.. wanting to smoke in pubs is just smoke screen then, what you really want to do is overturn the large pharma companys.. the pubs are just a red herring..
Random10538 2 years ago
Smoking in pubs should be up to pub owners. Not the government, not you, and not me. If all property owners are free to choose for themselves, then I have won, even if they choose to remain smoke free.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts. The problem I have on smoking pubs is that I believe, and you can't prove otherwise that smoking is harmful.. and like any working environment there is a duty of law to protect the worker and the customer. Now if you wanted a smokers pub
Random10538 2 years ago
Two companies getting rich at tax payers expence, and all the while stamping out the prospect of researching the possibility of tobacco being a natural and therefore free medicine. If it's curative properties became public knowledge, then the governments would have no justification in taxing it. We could grow our own herbs in our gardens and the government, the big tobacco companies, and the pharmacutical industry would all lose money.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts So what you're saying is..that the pharm companys and the big tabacco companies are stopping serious research into the medicinal uses of nicotine, because they are trying to get everyone to give up.
Random10538 2 years ago
Pharma are doing their own research on tobacco, for the purpose of isolating and extracting the various curative properties it has. Slowing the onset of Parkinsons disease, releaving Altziemers, and even skin anti aging creams are based on tobacco extracts. And this without the additional benefits from active smoking. Remember the animal experiments that demonstrated a reduced chance of developing cancer (and long gevity) amonst smoking animals.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts Surely big tabacco companys care when they are selling less tabacoo.. and when everyone has given up.. then what..
Random10538 2 years ago
They are selling more tobacco. Both smoking rates increase wherever bans are introduced, and the pharma companies buy tobacco too so they can extract the nicotine from it. That's why tobacco company share prices have increased.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts I've got loads of friends who are your age and haven't been ill! they are non-smokers. hardly proof... which, again, you say there isn't any.
Random10538 2 years ago
@HairyChestnuts "Smoking was valued for its medicinal properties for centuries" todays cigarettes are completely different from those made hundreds of years ago.. I can't really talk about the medicinal qualities of a cigarette unless you have proof.. if you had proof that smoking was good for you.. then how come doctors aren't advocating it..
Random10538 2 years ago
Anyway, I am going to give up tobacco, alcohol, meat and go to the gym every day, then I can die from good health. By the way, would any anti smokers like to come and see my carbon footprint? - it has steel toecaps!
Dorm2003 2 years ago
I know all about every type of cancer and heart failure, everybody dies from them if something else doesn't get them first. It is the body ageing. OK, have to admit that fate, and possibly lifestyle can make a person 'age' quicker. I also know however that on average 0.3% of smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, and most are over 60. So what is old?
Dorm2003 2 years ago
My mum had a nasty cough
So she was diagnosed with lung infection Even went to the hospital Photo's and the lot She was admitted to hospital and got huge amounts of antibiotics in oct 1998 Went home in nov Did not feel well at all It took them until march 1999 to find out Lung cancer By that time no cure was possible and she died in may . 63 years old
mizz77anna 2 years ago 2
As I understand it, the risk of getting cancer is more genetic than anything else, i.e. if one or both parents suffered early in life, that increases your chances greatly.
The same goes for risk of heart attack.
Look at Labour MP David Taylor - marathon runner and avid campaigner for the smoking ban. Dropped dead on Boxing Day taking a walk. He was 63.
mervintoot 2 years ago 3
@mervintoot In to secure better diangoses for non smokers, the health authorities would have to publicly aknowledge that they don't know much about cancer at all. But this would alert people to the obvious question, what have they been blowing all their research money on?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
i never thought of it that way.
ivanova88 2 years ago 2
Smoking and lung cancer -
Likely a huge COVERUP for above-ground nuclear testing of the 50s! As long as they can divert attention to those "dirty smokers" no one will look for the REAL cause!
Another great vid, Hairy!
MzProgressive 2 years ago
Brilliant! I don't smoke, but I thought this was rather clever. Great logic.
carolyncriss 2 years ago 2
They have weak immune systems too, germ fears make that happen too, alot of things are not nearly as easily airborne and harmfull as they say things are.
123Larra 2 years ago