Cancer Risk High as Smoking Surges in Africa

smoking is bad habbit,so damage humen brain too.thanks for sharing

yes ! it is ...
but if we know that then why Pakistan Gov. gives permission to smoke ?

Smoking causes Lung Cancer, Miscarraige, Neck Cancer, Gangrene, Mouth Cancer ... Would you still smoke after checking the picture of horrific reality I've posted here?

No no no ...
I will not smoke ... this is very dangerous ...

Dustgeer and myvox;
Don't fall for this propaganda - it is all exaggeration, manipulation of fact and half-truths!! (Old jewish saying "A half-truth is a full lie"!

These pictures are of cancers etc - These are found in non-smokers too! It's a con that is meant to frighten and deceive YOU. Smoking does not cause these things - industrial pollution DOES!

Global Smokefree is an organisation of fanatics who are paid vast sums of money to shift blame for ill health onto the individual from polluting big business. As developing nations begin the industrialisation programs big business will earn millions off the suffering of others and then blame your individual choices (like smoking, eating and drinking) for it.

Passive smoking has harmed no-one NOT ONE PERSON! On the other hand, smoking is known to be 'brain food' - it enhances brain function AND delays or prevents degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons - rather than harming.

YOU WILL be bombarded with health fears about smoking - don't believe them - CHECK OUT WHAT THEY SAY USING INDEPENDENT SOURCES.

"- don't believe them - CHECK OUT WHAT THEY SAY USING INDEPENDENT SOURCES."

Right! "INDEPENDENT SOURCES" like anonymous internet posters. And anyone who's NOT a scientist.

Smoking is "brain food??" Geez, not that you can tell by the astoundingly ignorant Vellocatus. Smoking is _terrible_ for mental health; it increases the risk of dementia, Alzheimer's and anxiety. The ONLY possible neurological benefit is for Parkinson's. But bear in mind, 44% of the cigarettes in the US are consumed by the mentally ill.

Secondhand smoke never hurt anyone? Science proves that's not true. Try nonsmoking waitress Heather Crowe, try Dr. Hasain, whose family was awarded $1M for his asthma death--from secondhand smoke-- aboard Olympic Airways.

Who's the bigger fool? Those that would believe some anonymous nut? Or the nut himself?

Or is he being paid to "go viral" to mislead people? The Tobacco industry's last strong demographic is the poor, the uneducated and all those just plain stupid enough to believe some internet denizen.

Don't fall for Velo's propaganda.

"- don't believe them - CHECK OUT WHAT THEY SAY USING INDEPENDENT SOURCES."

Right! "INDEPENDENT SOURCES" like anonymous internet posters. And anyone who's NOT a scientist.

Smoking is "brain food??" Geez, not that you can tell by the astoundingly ignorant Vellocatus. Smoking is _terrible_ for mental health; it increases the risk of dementia, Alzheimer's and anxiety. The ONLY possible neurological benefit is for Parkinson's. Bear in mind, 44% of the cigarettes in the US are consumed by the mentally ill.

Secondhand smoke never hurt anyone? Science proves that's not true. Try nonsmoking waitress Heather Crowe, try Dr. Hasain, whose family was awarded $1M for his asthma death--from secondhand smoke-- aboard Olympic Airways.

Who's the bigger fool? Those that would believe some anonymous nut? Or the nut himself?

Or is he being paid to "go viral," to mislead people in order to sell cigarettes? Maybe he's after the Tobacco industry's last strong demographic: the poor, the uneducated--and all those stupid enough to believe some anonymous internet denizen like Vellocatus.

Don't fall for his despicable propaganda.

Geneb;
I wondered how long it would take a tobacco control commentator (or gullible ignoramus) to pick up on this! Not long I see! Note the common anti-smoker use of insults and attempts to appear intelligent! Ffs! BUT see, Geeze!! anyone can spout insults!

There is a good reason why around 90% of mental health patients smoke - it is called ‘self medication’. Your body knows that it needs food and water - you don’t need to be told to eat or drink!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6797816.ece

“Suggestions that nicotine has a healing side are not new. More than 30 years ago, it was found smokers were less likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, and evidence that they have a lesser risk of ulcerative colitis was uncovered 20 years ago.”
Note the disclaimer that is essential for any scientist if they hope to continue working in their profession (such is the fear amongst the scientific / medical community - they would be kicked out if they were to even hint at smoking being beneficial without the disclaimer attached)
“None of the new nicotine advocates supports smoking.”

I don’t ask anyone to believe me - That is WHY I suggest people do their OWN research by looking at INDEPENDENT sources, rather than passively accept the propaganda spewed out by anti-smoking zealots posing as unbiased individuals, doctors or scientists. I only hope that I may motivate the ill informed to find these things out themselves.There are many other studies that show smoking is ‘brain food’ - just because a lying anti-tobacco scientist comes along and says the opposite does NOT cancel out those genuine studies, most of which were done BEFORE the demise of ethical medical study relating to smoking. Remember that the greatest modern thinkers have invariably been smokers so it doesn’t just benefit the mentally ill (eg Einstein, Churchill, Byron)

The benefits of smoking are not limited to preventing or delaying the onset of brain degenerative illnesses - there are MANY more benefits - check them out, there are plenty of references on the internet, if you can get beyond anti-tobacco propaganda.
If you want to find out about the ‘tobacco control’ passive smoking deception, start by reading this site (look under the passive smoking evidence section where it will explain the majority of studies and how to interpret them);

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1

Don’t allow yourself to be controlled and walked on by people with a selective agenda! Empower yourself by finding out the truth!

ps I am paid by no one to make these comments, nor am I associated with the tobacco industry, I make these comments because I despise lies, corruption and ANY attempt to restrict my or anyone else's freedom! - Can you say the same geneb, Can you deny any association with Big pharma or 'tobacco control' ?

Geneb;
I wondered how long it would take a tobacco control commentator (or gullible ignoramus) to pick up on this! Not long I see! Note the common anti-smoker use of insults and attempts to appear intelligent! Ffs! BUT see, Geeze!! anyone can spout insults!

There is a good reason why around 90% of mental health patients smoke - it is called ‘self medication’. Your body knows that it needs food and water - you don’t need to be told to eat or drink!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6797816.ece

“Suggestions that nicotine has a healing side are not new. More than 30 years ago, it was found smokers were less likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, and evidence that they have a lesser risk of ulcerative colitis was uncovered 20 years ago.”
Note the disclaimer that is essential for any scientist if they hope to continue working in their profession (such is the fear amongst the scientific / medical community - they would be kicked out if they were to even hint at smoking being beneficial without the disclaimer attached)
“None of the new nicotine advocates supports smoking.”

I don’t ask anyone to believe me - That is WHY I suggest people do their OWN research by looking at INDEPENDENT sources, rather than passively accept the propaganda spewed out by anti-smoking zealots posing as unbiased individuals, doctors or scientists. I only hope that I may motivate the ill informed to find these things out themselves.There are many other studies that show smoking is ‘brain food’ - just because a lying anti-tobacco scientist comes along and says the opposite does NOT cancel out those genuine studies, most of which were done BEFORE the demise of ethical medical study relating to smoking. Remember that the greatest modern thinkers have invariably been smokers so it doesn’t just benefit the mentally ill (eg Einstein, Churchill, Byron)

The benefits of smoking are not limited to preventing or delaying the onset of brain degenerative illnesses - there are MANY more benefits - check them out, there are plenty of references on the internet, if you can get beyond anti-tobacco propaganda.
If you want to find out about the ‘tobacco control’ passive smoking deception, start by reading this site (look under the passive smoking evidence section where it will explain the majority of studies and how to interpret them);http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1

Don’t allow yourself to be controlled and walked on by people with a selective agenda! Empower yourself by finding out the truth!

ps I am paid by no one to make these comments, nor am I associated with the tobacco industry, I make these comments because I despise lies, corruption and ANY attempt to restrict my or anyone else's freedom! - Can you say the same geneb, Can you deny any association with Big pharma or 'tobacco control' ?

Aw, Vello hates lies. Isn't he special?

Ever confronted a thief or a liar? A normal person will go, "What? Why do you think that?" Trying to figure out how the misunderstanding happened. But the professional thief or liar will immediately put up a huge smokescreen, a giant holier-than-thou front, "How dare you accuse ME?? ME, the MOTHER THERESA of HONOR!" Yeah, sure, Vello. We get it.

But if he hates lies as he claims, then why does he spread them?

"INDEPENDENT sources?" He means "UNACCOUNTABLE sources." He wants you to take lessons in "how to interpret" scientific studies from screwball websites?? Sure.

"Don’t allow yourself to be controlled and walked on by people with a selective agenda! Empower yourself by finding out the truth!"

That's a nice glib PR phrase. Vello would have you think PR firms are more trustworthy than the entire medical and scientific establishment--which happens to be the same establishment that has found that smoking seems to help Parkinson's. He wants it both ways--condemn the establishment as utterly corrupt AND cite its science for his own PR. The only worthy science is that which fits his agenda--a classic tobacco industry tactic.

But there's only real, regular science--and those who hate it, because its honest findings might hurt their business.

Will we one day find that the "Truths" Vello pushes were made up by PR companies? How does an industry on the wrong side of science fight back? Want to know how scientific PR is done?

Over the last year we've had plenty of neurological studies that indicate that smoking damages one's sense of well-being and happiness, and increases the risks of suicide, PTSD, MS, ALS, depression, dementia and, in children of smoking moms, ADHD, behavioral problems, and psychotic symptoms. But Vello slickly ignores all that data, and pulls out the one study that found increased mental sharpness in schizophrenics --which he then holds it up as Undeniable Proof of his agenda. For a scientist, studies must be carefully duplicated, checked and rechecked; it takes years to come to a consensus. No one study can ever have such almighty power. But for a PR person--OH YEAH! This is a time-honored tobacco industry tactic--pick the one aberrant study out of hundreds, and shout it from the rooftops as the Holy Word. This is "how to interpret" scientific studies--as taught by the tobacco industry. Through screwball websites. For the PR industry, there's a science to the denial of science.

And if Vello wants to throw around Proper Names, I'll trot out smokers like Stalin, Mao and Mussolini. It means nothing. Scientifically, it's pointless--it's all just typical PR tripe, designed to mislead. Real people who are interested in science and who hate lies never talk Vello's PR-speak.

"viral marketing" is alive and well; tobacco lost the science war, and can no longer control the media with it its ad dollars. So now the battlefield is the internet, and the industry's 60-year war of attrition is now being waged using psuedo-science and name-calling by glib shills from the PR industry.

But who exactly are these people? Ah, that's the beauty part: NO ONE KNOWS. No one will ever know who Vello is.

But considering the ugly history of this ugly industry, chances are that they are unconscionable creeps like Lloyd Mallan ("It IS Safe to Smoke"), Stanley Frank ("Cigarette-Cancer Link is Bunk") and all the others who secretly got paid off to spread the exact same kinds of swill Vello does. Many wrote science articles, op-eds, and letters to the editor--while secretly being paid. What happened to them? They slunk away, as Vello will. Ostensibly. "Vello" will be gone from the internet--but what's in a handle? No one knows who "Vello" is anyway. He can say whatever he wants. A new monicker and Presto! Now he's a Holocaust Denier. Presto! Now he's a Global Warming expert! The PR industry LOVES the internet!

Meanwhile, millions of poor addicted fools--your parents and grandparents, your siblings, your neighbors, our fellow citizens, the real people who believed these shills--have died, their families destitute. The damage PR worked for has been done. This is the true result of work like Vello's. People die from it.

After all, do we really expect the tobacco industry to change now? To see themselves at risk on message boards across the country, and _not_ respond? They've never reacted passively to such threats before. You'd be a fool to think they'd do so now. They still have lawsuits to defend, legislation to buck, profits to make: PR firms are actively out there, just as they have been for years, seeding the ground, trying to set the national mood, prepping the minds of potential jurors and legislators with ideas that mitigate their crimes.

But this is the internet age. There are companies that spider and scrape message boards for their clients' names, and then compile, tag, categorize and package the results, for sale to the highest bidder. The industry knows exactly where the message board action is, daily.

Want proof? Look, on every message board concerning tobacco's harms, and there's a post like Vello's--some anonymous "expert" savaging ordinary science with glib phrases and misleading, cherry-picked data, sending people off to "independent" screwball websites.

Yep--every single board. Isn't that odd? From the 1950s-80s, every time there was a news item about smoking, it would always end, "But Joe Blow from the Tobacco Institute said, 'This study is flawed.'" The industry needed to insert that hint of indecision, so some smoker may take comfort, and not quit.

Now it's 2009. And every online article ends with someone like Vello hopping on, anonymously, out of nowhere, to spout, "This study--in fact, all science--is flawed!"

No thanks, PR firms. I'll take my science from normal, peer-reviewed, open studies by real people with resumes and educations and accomplishments and reputations--not from scurrilous websites and anonymous shills spinning lies in order to keep their cigarette sales going. And our loved ones dying.

Ohhhhhh..... Brilliant -Quote;
"...But the professional thief or liar will immediately put up a huge smokescreen, a giant holier-than-thou front, "How dare you accuse ME?? ME, the MOTHER THERESA of HONOR!" Yeah, sure..."

Then what do you follow this with? - Thats right, exactly that!

Havent got time to reply at the moment but I will get back to you, oh oracle of the east, on some of the other 'detail' ha! later. In the mean time there is one glaring omission in your bluster - Your denial that you are not a shill for the pharmaceutical industry or lying cheating groups known collectively as 'tobacco control'! - I ask again are you commenting on your own behalf or are you one of the many who are associated with/employed by these organisations to try to discredit any reasoned arguments put across by pro choice commentators?

It is one thing purporting to be a concerned citizen quite another to blatantly deceive by denying vested interests?

Do tell !

Right geneb;

Not telling about any vested interests?

Lets have a look at some of your other bluster, generalisations and poor attempts to divert attention away from relevant facts.

It seems that the majority of your BS is ad hominem attack and attempts to associate me with the ‘evil’ tobacco industry and blind appeals to authority (. (a well used anti-tobacco tactic). On top of that we have the emotive “Think of the Chiiildren’ sound bite, topped off with the classic ‘addicted fools’ bit for good measure - ALL anti-tobacco ruses! What happened to the favourite “hair and clothes smell” that means you have to shower now and again and wash your clothes? Then we have the accusation of using “glib phrases” while stuffing your own comment with copious amounts of them!! No meat there, no science to back up what you say, nothing, just piffle! And what’s all this crap about PR companies?

I think you need a little history lesson and a bit of background information.

Lets get one thing clear from the outset. It seems that your reading skills leave a lot to be desired, I believe I clearly explained my position above. To take this a little further just for you gen, I am no fan of the Tobacco industry, they are just another greedy business that places profit above all else. In terms of being evil however they pale into insignificance when compared with the Pharma industry and their salesforce, tobacco control.

Big T sold smokers down the river in mid 1990‘s when they colluded with ‘anti-tobacco’ in the cosy master settlement agreement to protect their monopoly in the industry and prevent future litigation. Big T have gone from strength to strength as a result (look at the massive increase in their share prices when most other companies are struggling). They gave the hefty bill to smokers.

This was a major milestone in the demise of ethical, genuine smoking research. It was the beginning of the free-for-all money grab for any scientist who was prepared to produce the ‘right’ results, hence the subsequent mass of pseudo-science attacking previous genuine science (and the recent ‘research’ to which geneb refers, and no doubt the exodus from smoking research by any ethical scientists). This was not the beginning, that was almost a generation ago when the first studies were carried out and fanatical anti-smokers saw their chance. Of course, gen will say “don’t believe Vello, we don’t know who he is”. You don’t need to know who I am, just what I represent and value - ie the exact opposite of anti-smokers; individual freedom, ethical research, truth and honesty etc. I too mainly look to those peer reviewed studies used by anti-tobacco that geneb so reverently refers to, but NOT necessarily to their often flawed or skewed interpretation. While it will be rare for anti-tobacco scientists to use pure, outright deception, note the omissions, half truths and common usage of words like ‘may’ ‘estimate’‘possibly’ etc.

I don't ask anyone to believe me (and definitely not YOU) but only to look deeper, even if it is only to try to prove me wrong!

Your beloved rabid anti-smoker high priest, Stanton Glantz, is not shy and has made several comments that give an insight into the corruption of science. He has openly told anti-smoking activists to ‘bloody’ those politicians who question anti-smoker rhetoric; ‘persuaded’ universities etc not to employ any scientist who has had even the smallest amount of ‘tobacco funding’ etc.

This is his view on how he selects and funds smoking research (1992) (he has access to substantial funds);

"…that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the criteria”

So it appears that our Stanton, a typical example of the anti smoker scientific community, only wants to have the ‘right’ scientists and 'right' tobacco research so he is pretty sure what their results will be before the research even begins. Anyone who criticises will be attacked and ‘bloodied’

Check his pedigree out in more detail; http://www.smokershistory.com/glantz.htm
and here; http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=64

An example of the despicable response to genuine ethical scientists who don’t kow tow to anti-tobacco, is a large peer reviewed study by respected epidemiologists Enstrom and Kabat, who came up with the ‘wrong’ results - for anti-tobacco! (Read all the comments to get a flavour of anti-smoker bile);
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057

I thought Mussolini was rabid anti-smoker along with his mate, Hitler. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, with some reference pls.

One other point geneb - why don’t you like the idea that people do their own research? Are you frightened that they too will come to the same conclusions as me... and join a growing band who see beyond anti-smoker Bu**sh*t? Can’t have the masses educating themselves and questioning the ‘experts’ can we geneb?- it would threaten the ‘consensus’ (Which means; “we don’t KNOW, but a lot of us ‘experts’ THINK we have an idea what we are talking about” ).

I bet you stopped eating eggs when the ‘experts’ told you that they would give you salmonella and stopped drinking milk because the ‘experts’ told you it was bad for your health - then when they told you milk was good for you, slurped it down by the pint so you could live a long healthy life. Don’t you believe in questioning your betters geneb? Just passively accept everything they say? Do you understand the meaning of the word 'gullible' ?

Anyway, I could have gone on and on but I don’t want to overload your brain. When I get a response to this comment, then we can get down to some more detail. Please ask if you want anything clarifying, I’ll be only too pleased to oblige.

ps. Who are you geneb if not anonymous?

Oh dear, poor Vello. In all that screwy stew of a reply, he still can't make anything stick? Well, not unless screwball websites and his own confused yet grandiose proclamations are to be believed.

But his misleading nonsense is typical for pro-smoking PR, even if bizarrely expressed (all you have to do is keep these people talking and they tie themselves up in their own knots; I'm convinced PR companies give the online viral marketing chores to newbies).

Unfortunately for Vello and his ilk, the truth is easily found, on actual websites, in normal studies by real scientists with names, educations, and reputations (all part of Vello's GRAND CONSPIRACY, I'm sure; whatever).

The comprehensive 2006 Surgeon General's report is at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

NIH Secondhand Smoke info:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

ACS Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Wikipedia does a surprisingly good job of encapsulating the reality behind Vello's feeble PR in "Industry-funded Studies and Critiques":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques

It's tedious to have to expose all this tripe, but let's be clear: these people can't find any real scientists who aren't tobacco-connected.

PS: In amidst Vello's vitriol and murk, I saw an actual concrete question. This concerned Mussolini, whom Hitler greatly admired as a Man's Man. It's commonly known that Mussolini was the only person Hitler allowed to smoke in his presence.

Oh dear, poor Vello. In all that screwy stew of a reply, he still can't make anything stick. Not unless screwball websites and his own confused yet grandiose proclamations are to be believed.

But his misleading nonsense is typical for pro-smoking PR, even if bizarrely expressed (all you have to do is keep these people talking and they tie themselves up in their own knots; I'm convinced that the online viral marketing chores mostly go to newbies).

Unfortunately for Vello and his ilk, the truth is easily found, on actual, accountable websites, in normal studies by real scientists with names, educations, and reputations (all part of Vello's GRAND CONSPIRACY, I'm sure; whatever).

The comprehensive 2006 Surgeon General's report is at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

NIH Secondhand Smoke info:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

ACS Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Wikipedia does a surprisingly good job of encapsulating the reality behind Vello's feeble PR in "Industry-funded Studies and Critiques":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques

It's tedious to have to expose all this tripe, but let's be clear: these people can't find any real scientists who aren't tobacco-connected.

PS: In amidst Vello's vitriol and murk, I saw an actual concrete question on a factual (if trivial) matter. This concerned Mussolini, whom Hitler greatly admired as a Man's Man, and was the only person Hitler allowed to smoke in his presence. You want references?? Oh, google it. I'm not writing a dissertation to mitigate your trademark ignorance and laziness.

Oh dear, poor Vello. In all that screwy stew of a reply, he still can't make anything stick. Not unless screwball websites and his own confused yet grandiose proclamations are to be believed.

But his misleading nonsense is typical for pro-smoking PR, even if bizarrely expressed (all you have to do is keep these people talking and they tie themselves up in their own knots; I'm convinced that the online viral marketing chores mostly go to newbies).

Unfortunately for Vello and his ilk, the truth is easily found, on actual, accountable websites, in normal studies by real scientists with names, educations, and reputations (all part of Vello's GRAND CONSPIRACY, I'm sure; whatever).

The comprehensive 2006 Surgeon General's report is at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

NIH Secondhand Smoke info:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

ACS Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Wikipedia does a surprisingly good job of encapsulating the reality behind Vello's feeble PR in "Industry-funded Studies and Critiques":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques

It's tedious to have to expose all this tripe, but let's be clear: these people can't find any real scientists who aren't tobacco-connected.

PS: In amidst Vello's vitriol and murk, I saw an actual concrete question on a factual (if trivial) matter. This concerned Mussolini, whom Hitler greatly admired as a Man's Man. It's well-known that Mussolini was the only person Hitler allowed to smoke in his presence. You want references?? Oh, google it. I'm not writing a dissertation just to assuage your trademark ignorance and laziness.

You are STILL not listening geneb!!!!

AGAIN>>>>> I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TOBACCO COMPANY OR ANY PR COMPANY!!!

You, on the other hand, have carefully avoided stating whether you have anything to do with the anti-tobacco movement or pharmaceutical industry. Do we have to assume you ARE an anti-tobacco shill or employed to perpetuate the deception? ie. YOU ARE NOT commenting on your own behalf but to further your employers selective, despicable agenda?

Of course you will not: a) admit your anti-tobacco connections because it highlights your vested and flawed interests and you will be seen for who you are. b) deny your vested interests because you know when this anti-smoker deception is prosecuted in the future, you risk finding yourself in a little square room with a single bed and toilet for company!

Have you got the balls to do either geneb?

I have come across one or two ‘professional’ anti-tobacco commentators and they have, like you, very little true knowledge about the smoking debate - other than what can be found in the anti-smoker manual on propaganda and misinformation! In the end they almost ALL revert to the 'smell' as the main thrust of their argument in favour of their fanatical agenda - the science IS almost all discredited and difficult to justify though!

The web links you provide are typical examples of anti-smoker propaganda - there are many more because they have masses of funding from big pharma and public taxation to produce their misinformation to indoctrinate the gullible. Those who argue for freedom and against the tobacco fraud tend to be individuals who have no access to any funds and therefore cannot afford the mass public campaign of tobacco control organisations. (nor pay commentators to infiltrate forums)

Unfortunately the anti-smoker movement only contains those who are themselves indoctrinated into the anti-smoker deception. ALL moderate scientists/doctors were ejected from the fold years ago - leaving only the fanatics. That is WHY I say any research should be via INDEPENDENT sources. The sites you quote, are NOT independent. Even Wiki is not independent, I know of submissions to that site on the subject of SHS etc that have been removed, leaving only the propaganda from anti-tobacco! It is SOOOOOOOOO important to keep the public from seeing the truth. (Mushroom farming - keep in the dark and feed copious amounts of SH*T)

NOW READ these web sites, each written by a respected and well qualified doctor and scientist

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/?p=9

Contains most of what anyone needs to know to understand the SHS myth .. for starters anyway.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/rest-of-story-author-expelled-from.html

Explains the nature of anti-tobacco and most of YOUR comments too as it happens- avoid the substance, evidence and reasonable debate - just try to discredit by linking to ‘evil’ tobacco companies! (and in your case - PR companies FFS)

It is common knowledge that Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker who actually instigated the present anti-smoker campaign but not so clear whether Mussolini was a smoker. I am not saying you are lying geneb but I would appreciate a link or some evidence of his smoking, rather than just accepting your word on the matter. I did ask for this originally.

Keep your comments coming geneb, most people are not as stupid as YOU seem to think they are - I’m sure they can see through you too!.

hmmm !
You are right ...
Thanks for sharing your views ...

smoking is not a good habit

wasy oper enho nay kya kya kaha kuch paly nahi pera mery :D such

Well it looks like geneb doesn't want to divulge his vested interests! Never mind. I will reply to you methee.

While it is repeated continuously, the evidence that smoking is 'not a good habit' is almost non existent. Just because you have been told that over and again does not make it a fact!

You need to utilise some common sense and logic to understand. Always ask WHY? I have already pointed to many benefits of smoking and hope ypu will make the effort to find these things out for yourself - one thing is for sure you will not be told about them by any official sources including school or university.

Here are a couple of WHY ? questions;

Why, in the developed world, has smoking decreased from around 80% of males in 1945 (UK) to around 25% today YET all cancers continue to increase year on year? The reduction in smoking has made no difference whatsoever. Why?

Why do the heaviest smoking countries tend to have LESS cancers than the countries with the least smokers? Why?

You will hear that smokers get the most lung cancers - but do you know what the chances are? Anti-tobacco's own figures reveal the true figure (they won't tell you though) but they will say something like you are ‘X’ times more likely than a non-smoker to frighten you! Look at the actual risk and it isn’t anywhere near as bad;

99.98% of all smokers WILL NOT GET LUNG CANCER!!! - Don't you think that if smoking caused lung cancer that somewhat more than ONE quarter of ONE percent of smokers would suffer from it? (Fat by Rob Grant, Gollancz 2006)

Now lung cancer HAS apparently reduced slightly and this is used as proof positive of smoking harm. BUT this can just as easily be attributed to the controls on the reduction in use and removal of ASBESTOS - it has almost been eliminated in the UK!

Now I believe asbestos is STILL widely used in Africa for such as asbestos sheeting for rooves etc particularly in the poorer areas. THIS IS THE REAL DEADLY STUFF! It is relatively harmless if undisturbed but if it is cut, drilled or smashed up, it will release fibres than can be inhaled or ingested and is PROVEN to cause cancer (unlike tobacco smoke)! - Two million asbestos fibres would fit on a pin head and they can be spread widely on the wind!!!

Now when your ruling classes push for smoking bans - ask WHY more emphasis is placed on individual lifestyle choices (smoking, eating, drinking) while the control of a FAR more dangerous substance is given only a passing interest?

Vello DARES to drag Dr. Siegel in? I guess he figures no one would check. Dumb (no surprise). I did.

Dr. Siegel would flay Vello for his ignoramus comments. While Siegel hates many tobacco control groups and statements, he fully supports science. You know, real science: the science on primary smoking (how dingbat low can Vello go?), as well as the science on secondhand smoke and the need for smoking bans.

But most of all, Siegel despises ignorance--yawning, gaping, all-devouring ignorance like Vello's. Reading Vello's oh-so-scientifical proclamations is like gazing into the Abyss. What just plain stupid crap. All slathered out in a steady stream of diarrhea, take his word for it--and he wants references for Mussolini??

A few facts not derived from screwball websites:

--10% of smokers develop lung cancer--not .02%, as Vello so capitally avers, citing a novel(!)

--The life expectancy for a smoker in the US is 64--14 years shorter than the national average (78, including smokers).

--And asbestos has been a major issue since the first lawsuit in 1966, over half a century ago now.

Vello's ignorance is on a scale that can only be described as monumental. I wish I had this guy's real name, it would go in the lexicon as a synonym for "stupendously imbecilic."

Oh, but Vello and his screwball websites obviously know far more than the entire medical and scientific communities.

That's especially laughable when anything more nuanced than black-and-white or two-plus-two-is-four gets him all all flummoxed. Not to mention the caps lock key, exclamation points, proper grammar and big words(!) He can't even comprehend the Mediterranean Diet.

This is our scientific genius?