It is just a little blog put together by petty antis filled with themselves. But they talk about us, so they are worthy of a few lines.
So, folks, now we are “denialists”, and they are “studying us”. That is only fair: after all, we ourselves have studied the antismoking condition for years.
Let’s hear what they have to say about us: “I thought the denial of the link between smoking and cancer had gone out of style. The link between smoking and cancer is so thoroughly established that I thought no one could continue to defend cigarettes with a straight face.” Well, it takes some face to say just that – but we have to understand that these are pseudo-scientific ideologues, much along the lines of that Marxism that wanted to use science to justify its own doctrine. They may even actually believe what they say.
The link (intended to mean causality) between smoking and cancer is so thoroughly established, in fact, that they cannot demonstrate one single death without guessing and without reciting the rosary of their beliefs and referring to “authorities” which in turn refer to other “authorities” in an endless bamboozling closed loop of referrals that never leads you to any proof. This is done in "studies" where the most assertive words to be found are "would" and "should", "suggests" and "seems". How do we solve the problem that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? Like this: it is not the flat earther who has to demonstrate his assertion.
In tune with the ad hoc Precautionary Principle (moulded to enable scientific quackery and political control), in fact, the expectation here is that it is we who have to demonstrate that smoking does not cause cancer — bet your life on that! According to these "political" scientists, in fact, questionnaire-based epidemiological "attributions" of multifactorial causality diseases imposed by those who say they are "in-the-know" substitute for scientifically established causality and indeed become "scientific proof" — unless you can prove a negative which, of course, cannot be done. Convenient, huh?… But if they could actually demonstrate the causality, they would not spend billions in cultural propaganda to spread the belief. There is no need for propaganda about polio, TB — or gravity, as they are truly and scientifically established. The above, let it be clear, does not mean that smoking cannot cause cancer; it simply means that, in spite of the propaganda, causality is still to be scientifically demonstrated.
However, if these people think that they can scientifically demonstrate the unique causality (smoking in our case) of one cancer (or scientifically measure the contribution of smoking to just one cancer), this posting serves as an invitation to a public and unabridged scientific debate. The line is open and the rules are simple: no ideology, no animosity, no circular referrals to “authority” – just the solidity of the science at hand using strictly scientific procedures. As one of them defines himself “MD/PhD Candidate in the Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics at the University of Virginia” (wow, that is some mouthful, it should "convince" everybody!), he should have no trouble at all making us look bad. After all, we only have "these unbelievable crank fake experts", so he should have no problem whatsoever. His colleagues are also invited. Let’s see what these "real experts" can do.
The problem is that the overwhelming probability is that they will not take the invitation and will hide behind their BS smokescreen as per standard antismoking procedure: speak "authoritatively", slander to your heart’s content — but absolutely avoid confrontation over the science, in case the BS comes out. And if that’s the case, we have already given the quacks all the attention they deserve.