Smoking DOES NOT Protect Lungs From Cancer

Fact checked
April 4, 2017 Grayson Black Health 12
Some governments are covering up their direct responsibilities for causing most lung and skin cancers in the world today by blaming smoking.
Sharon Stone smoking in "Basic Instinct"
LinkedInRedditTelegram

Update: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that smoking might help protect lungs from cancer.

There is no scientific study to back up these claims and we have therefore decided to retract the original story. 

As Health Feedback point out, “large-scale human studies from the 1950s to recent times have consistently shown a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.”

Grayson Black

Latest posts by Grayson Black (see all)

12 Comments

  2. Take second hand smoke they claim it a killer yet the SG report of 1989 page 80 says it’s 96% water vapor and air!

    Shs was always a lie and it was Hitler’s anti tobacco Nazis that invented the propaganda term and it was recycled by the UN anti tobacco caucus in 1975 where sir George Godber proclaimed we must make people think tobacco smoke will harm others!

    Reply

  3. It is possible, that the tobacco plant takes up radioactive strontium 90 and other decay daughters of A-bomb testing and therefore smokers inhale these particles. Our vast decline in active smoking over the last 50 years has resulted in a sight decline in lung cancer, so it’s hard for me to believe smoking is not related to lung cancer somehow.

    Reply

  4. There are many reasons to believe that the post WWII global lung cancer epidemic was caused by atomic weapons testing fallout rather than smoking.

    1) The global lung cancer epidemic (age standardised) starts in 1945 when atomic weapons testing fallout starts and ends around 1985 when the fallout ends.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a27fc15d75531f2ed0fd97e46fc9ca3e28334d533e1a11c86bcf8e4a2d0613f9.png

    2) Lung cancer rises after 1945 in every country in the world regardless of when smoking became popular. Take for example a country like Sweden where smoking became popular 20 – 30 years after a country such as the US and yet it’s lung cancer epidemic starts at the same time and the US – ~1945 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0559f7a546996532d484813851d7bcdfe2fc812fafb012e79b62118497a83e0b.png
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b936fc9a674cd8ff3cf5aa416ce136532714d3841400835723111660cfe8b03.png

    3) Where there is a lot of rain there is more lung cancer. Weapons testing fallout will be in higher concentrations where it rains.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6fa35ff7b81b4e06e541ecf3eb4178fa870f89f9969063d71b54fc8e5525552.png

    4) Countries such as the Russia and other former USSR members saw a fall in lung cancer after 1985 despite continuing with very high smoking rates.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38131c73541bfca1bf28d943bc4d0bf3f2f0120574ed8dae4aa73602ae4815ac.png
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3c748d737181c749da7339ff0e35386cd39d276e630fafbc7b74e60b27c7751.png

    5) The theory that smoking causes lung cancer can not possibly explain a 30 fold increase in never smokers after WWII.

    The cigarette hypothesis is rejected by these data and the fallout hypothesis is enhanced.

    Reply

  5. …Is there poison from insect-or-fungus spray in the papers used? Is there poison on the tobacco leaves? Are there “ingredients” added by manufactures, not shown on package labels?
    ‘Nuff said.

    Reply

  6. I really wished there were more sources in this text so I could spread the info with more effectively. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.