Every possible effort of propaganda is put into the construction of a culture that believes that “smoking kills”, particularly, that smoking “causes” lung cancer: no expense is spared.

By “expense” we don’t mean just money: any and all costs shall be expended – social disintegration, family disintegration, hatred, discrimination, violence – the antismoking scum will inculcate its para-religious belief in everybody at any expense, including and especially indoctrination of children, brainwashed in school to despise their neighbours and families. The antismoking cancer wants most of all to metastasize throughout the next generation.

Yet the next generation is already witnessing the unfolding of the exposure of the greatest fraud in history. As our columnist Søren Højbjerg points out, the number of newly diagnosed lung cancers is increasing dramatically everywhere in the United States, including "smoke-free to the square centimetre" California.

If smoking were the culprit, the opposite should be happening.

Think about it. Even assuming that the “incubation” of lung cancer is 20 years or more, the sharp decline – about 50% – of the number of smokers in the US occurred in the 20 years after the first US Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking in 1964. In 1964 ethics had not entirely disappeared in public health circles, thus the SG of the time made pains to explain that there is no scientific proof of lung cancer causality via smoking, just a statistical attribution.

Be that as it may, from 1964 to 1984, the number of smokers was almost halved. Another 24 years have since elapsed. Even by adding that commonly expressed and theoretical 20 years of “incubation”, because the number of smokers has halved, we should be witnessing roughly half of the newly diagnosed lung cancer by now, next to what it was in 1984. This is not the case. Lung cancer has kept growing and now grows by leaps.

In line with the nation, healthist California, taken as a “model” by the rest of the antitobacco scum in America, and which boasts the largest percentage of ex-smokers in the union (our interpretation being the largest incidence of idiots who believed the frauds of “public health”) shows a historically dramatic increase of newly diagnosed lung cancers: 14,900 in 2006 and 17,920 in 2007. Are these all smokers? Certainly not. Have cigarettes become more “lethal” as tobacco manufacturers are watched far more that plutonium manufacturers? Certainly not. Has the exposure to passive smoking dramatically increased? High quit rates and smoking bans everywhere: offices, restaurants, bars, now outdoors and in one’s own home have proliferated over decades at this point, in California, in advance of all other precincts of the USA! The result: more lung cancer, much more, at a now vastly increasing rate, amongst Californians, as amongst Americans countrywide.

How do we explain the sharp increase in newly diagnosed lung cancers? We don’t have an answer, but one thing is being empirically demonstrated: smoking has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if we were as stupid and crooked as “health authorities” are, we could boast that “there is a sharp, inverse relationship between lung cancer and smoking”: as smoking decreases, lung cancer goes up.

So much for quitting. Be sure to light up as you read this illuminating article.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder