FORCES has long said that not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused by smoking. We have also said that the quantification of “smoking-related” deaths is another fraud of public health institutions. This article helps to understand why.
There are many factors of lung cancer risk; one of them may be smoking. The “may be” is not rhetorical or political, but rigorously accurate. “May be” because for no patient can one can say that smoking caused the disease outside the realm of personal opinion; “may be” because the deep etiology of cancer is still unknown; “may be” because there are many other risks factors that are underestimated, since the bulk of research money on lung cancer goes mainly to reinforce the ideological dogma that smoking is the main cause of lung cancer – to the point of stating that “if it wasn’t for smoking, lung cancer would be an extremely rare disease”.
This study brings some light on the subject:
“Genetic variations, along with having a strong lung cancer family history, will lead to a five times increased risk of developing the disease, a new study suggests. In fact, people who have a family history of lung cancer and two copies of the genetic variations have between a 5.7 and 7.2-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer.”
“The study’s findings were not affected by whether the subjects were smokers or non smokers. This means that smoking and the genetic variations are independent risk factors, ‘and together they might cause an even greater increase in lung cancer risk,’ [Dr. Ming You] said." The researchers said this is the fourth such study since April of this year to link this genetic region to the development of lung cancer.”
Sure thing: risk factors can be summed – but the attribution of the actual causality remains an opinion, not a scientific demonstration. Unfortunately, science has been transformed into a democracy, majority rules – very much like political parties in parliament! How long before attributions of causality are traded for grants as if they were political commodities, or the ridiculous carbon credits in the Kyoto Treaty? Don’t worry, that has been in place for a long time already – and not just for smoking.
Poor science. Actually, poor us.
0 Comments