/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10179262
No. At the very least, it's nowhere as bad as it is made out to be.
Read Whitby M.D.'s books and think for yourself. An intelligent man examines an argument even if he disagrees with it.


>The Smoking Scare Debunked
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf

>Smoking is Good For You
https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby

>>10179273
Simpleton logic and straw man.
>>10179275
This.
>>10179276
>SMOKE = BAD!
NPC spotted
>>10179278
Smoking will not lead to "fucked up lungs"
>>10179279
It doesn't "cause" either of those. It's statistically associated with them at only slightly higher rates than the general population, and this is no surprise whenever the participants self-select and the researchers already set out with biased hypotheses and are looking to prove themselves right. Also, the US studies showing this statistical relationship failed to correct for dietary and lifestyle factors and grouped smokers, a population in the US who is not the least bit health conscious, as a lump because the researchers wanted to make smoking out to be the bad guy from the start. The studies out of Japan of the 1990s and 2000s, stand in direct contradiction to the adverse cardiovascular effects and also show much lower rates of lung cancer, now referred to as the Smoker's Paradox. Coincidentally, those Japanese studies were not funded by the American Lung Association
>>10179288
>associations
>reader is too stupid to dissect the methodology used to derive these and accepts their validity without question

>>10056606
/thread.