Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
See this a perfect example of half truths for the masses. If smoking is the sole reason for causing cancer, than why didn't the oldest person on record to ever live get cancer after smoking well into her 110's? Why didn't my grandmother get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Why did her husband get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Smoking isn't good for you and there is no doubt that it is a contributing factor to cancer, but why did my grandmother live into her 90's after a life of smoking without cancer and her husband only lived to his 70's after a life of smoking to only die from throat cancer....What is the difference here, you certainly can't conclude from that small sample size that smoking caused cancer, there is more too it, diet (which you would think between the two should be the same) neither were obese....but on thing that is different..genetics...its only part of the story....you can certainly say the smoking conributed to my grandfathers cancer, but we will never no if he never smoked what would of happened.
|
I think smoking and its dangers is one of the most well examined causes of cancer, albeit I would agree there are other massively bad problems out there like diet/obesity, chemicals in our daily food intake, etc..
However to say that smoking causes cancer is half truth is silly, you may have a grandmother who lived to 90 who smoked all her life, I had a mother who died from throat/lung cancer caused by smoking, while my father who has smoked since 12yrs old (now 73) is cancer free.
The thing the tobacco industry was trying to do was not associate smoking with cancer, which is ridiculous because of the direct proof of it.
BTW no one has ever claimed smoking to be the sole cause of cancer, all the science done was to show it can cause cancer. I have never seen anyone claim smoking was the 'sole cause of cancer' but a large contributor to it if you are a smoker.