Reply #8: But that's not the truth.

[Kalyke]

It's never been scientifically proven that smoking causes lung cancer:

http://www.inspire.com/groups/lung-cancer-survivors/discussion/smoking-does-not-cause-lung-cancer/

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

(According to WHO/CDC Data)*

By: James P. Siepmann, MD

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."

But, you know what has been proven to cause lung cancer?

Birds

Obesit

Inactivity

Pollution

Poor Diet

Do they put that statement on the boxes of Twinkies or the exhausts of automobiles or at the pet store?