займ на карту с любой кредитной историей

Further Information

Some risks factors for lung cancer independent of cigarette smoking |
Article Published: 1995

Details:
Further Information

The table inside contain a list of suspected lung cancer confounders other than cigarette smoking. Of course, NONE of the confounders (cigarette smoking included) has been scientifically demonstrated to be a causality: these are all epidemiological “associations.” It's perhaps unnecessary to mention that, in studies on cigarettes smoking that have the political intent of “demonstrating” that cigarette smoking ”kills,” these factors are selectively or entirely ignored, because the ideology cares to believe that they become irrelevant next to what the ideology cares to endorse as "the cause" of lung cancer: smoking.

It gets worse than that. With smoking nailed with "causality" through propaganda, and having thus established that scientific proof in not necessary because “everybody knows” that smoking “causes” lung cancer, the fantasy of “public health” (and its repressive and regulating policies) now expands to a vast array of other issues – with no limitations in sight. Repeatedly the well-tested scarecrow of death, disease, and false statistics with big numbers has worked extremely well on a dumbed-down population that is largely ready to trade every bit of liberty and self-determination in exchange for the promises of the “public health” charlatans.

It really only takes a minute to realize the absurdity of what is being stated and implemented. Based on this list, “public health” is telling us that by regulating to extinction (or alternatively making mandatory): carotene/vitamin a deficiency or intake, alcohol intake, dietary cholesterol/fat intake, active and passive smoking, pork meat intake, vegetable diet, fruit intake, milk intake, hormone therapy in women, radon intake, cooking methods, motor exhaust exposure, arsenic ingestion, vitamin A, C and E intake, arsenic ingestion, physical activity, asbestos exposure, and beer drinking, to choose just a few examples, lung cancer will disappear.

Can anyone rationally believe that? Is anybody ready to pay the price – even in the case of over 200 confounders, such as the case of cardiovascular disease? Yet, this is exactly what insane “public health” is doing – one confounder at a time.

FORCES is supported solely by the efforts of the readers. Please become a member or donate what you can.



Contact Info
Forces Contacts
Media Contacts
Advertisers
Evidence Categories
Quick Look-Up
List of Methodological Errors in ETS Studies
Hill's Criteria and Authoritative Citations
What Must an Epidemiologic Study Warrant?
Table of All Studies on ETS and Lung Cancer up to 2006

Pie Charts of ETS/Lung Cancer Studies
How many cigarettes must be smoked to create an ETS danger?


Passive Smoking: an Institutional Problem
A 13-minute video to understand the fraud


If you like to read rather then listen, download
Now available for free