>>1311654Smoking is not bad for you
All associations of smoking and cancer are the result of non-randomized epidemiological studies, even in animals (hard science, actual experimental studies, with forced tubing to deliver tobacco 24/7, scientists are unable to induce lung cancer with tobacco smoke. In fact tobacco smoke sometimes extended the life spans in low doses and would protect against random induced lung cancer.
Now most will say “i have a relative who died from smoking a pack a day for 45 years”
This is a very biased “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy based arising from flawed anecdotal observation and incomplete information. You do not know if the smoking caused cancer. You see that he smoked and you blame the smoking for causing it.
I’m willing to bet that relative quit before he got cancer. As crazy as it may sound tobacco actually suppresses various cancer growth factors- the majority of smokers who get cancer are those who suddenly stop because these cancer growth factors like IGF-1, which were previously suppressed by the tobacco use, were “uperegulated”.
If you will find the following paper by cross, et al
“Carcinogenic effect of radon daughters, uranium ore dust and cigarette smoke in beagle dogs”
You will see that the tobacco smoke has an anti carcinogenic effects if anything the tobacco use bought that relative more years of life to which you should be thankful.