Alrighty give me one actual reason why smoking is bad for the human body without using

I would imagine inhaling burnt shit would be bad for you somehow.
But whatever, I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, and I'm sure second hand smoke isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be either.
I don't personally do it but my biggest gripe with it is that I hate the smell. It all smells like shit to me and it sticks to your clothes and belongings like a motherfucker.
I just wish smokers were more considerate about smoking around people and just assumed other people hate the smell and non smokers weren't such uppity assholes about the whole thing either.

smoking doesnt really cause cancer as much as the media wants you to think. It DOES increase heart problems, strokes. You're stressing all your veins and capillary when you smoke ya dingus. nicotine is a blatant vasoconstrictor. I used to smoke alot more than i do now. I do sometimes but i try not to because of my heart problems.

So I have to cite a study that is both
>Not funded by government
>Not funded by the private industry
Hmmmmmm

And you're able to state factually that your heart problems aren't genetic or the result of a western diet or other drugs (prescription drugs and coffee are still technically drugs)?

Smoking lowers blood pressure in epidemiological studies so the idea of it hurting the heart or arteries doesn't make sense. If smoking actually hurt the heart there'd be a lot more heart failure in people who smokes in the 50's.

As a north america I'm guessing that being a giant fatass is really bad for your immune system which is crucial to fighting off cancer. So we might smoke less but our bodies aren't capable of fighting off cancer when it starts.

No evidence though. I'm going to start looking for some right now.

On a side note all my grandparents smoked but also lived very active lives and they are in great shape (anecdotal evidence obviously). So I'd say you have to account for all factors (diet, exercise, stress, smoking, drinking, drugs, etc)

>not funded by government

And

>not funded by pharmaceutical industry

Didn't say anything about private industries, just one.

I smoked Marlboros and would cough up yellow gooey shit. I switched to cigarettes with no additives and it stopped.

I'm thinking the chemicals they put in the cigarettes are what cause it. Natural 100% tobacco doesnt seem to do that. My lung capacity still isnt what it was when I did not smoke but thats because I am filling them with smoke.

Anyway I'm gonna quit smoking here soon. Already cut back from 10 a day to 3 a day and am gonna gradually reduce that to 0.

>and show your math without using government-approved methods

Performing an action X is built to do past what it can presently handle != Forcing foreign agents into a passageway the body has systems in place to keep foreign agents from entering

Prove to me you exist without using:

>evidence

Go ahead fag. I bet you can't.

If you stop smoking by 30 your chance of dying is statistically the same as somebody who doesn't smoke, and if you stop by 40 it's just barely elevated.

Ever seen what smoke does to the walls of a house after a fire?

I guess smoking really is good for you then
wtf i love emphysema now
really made me think about how the biggest cause of death from fires is smoke inhalation-not
brb going to smoke a carton of bad smelling incense that doesn't even make you intoxicated or high because I have nothing better to do with my hands at a high school party

Also this. I know north american smokes are vastly different to European smokes. As I mentioned before my grandparents and their siblings moved back to Europe and they don't like the smokes there nearly as much. when they go on vacation they buy cartons of the shit from Canada. Might be a nostalgia thing tho. My dad did mention they are dried differently.

internal radiation exposure to lung tissue from Po-210, among other radioisotopes

I doubt smoking well into your 60's and 70's would make zero difference or may even strengthen your lifespan. That's probably just a shit study. Plenty of smokers live well into old age.

Likely genetics are the real problem. Or a lot of bad dietary choices.

This says otherwise

syo.dalrun.com/Forum/Tobacco/Topics/493.html
>The alleged danger of polonium in tobacco smoke is a hoax. The often repeated tale of "300 X-rays per year" is a made up figure based on a "model" in which all of tobacco smoke you inhale in a year is concentrated on a microscopic area, few cells in size.
>In reality tobacco, which like all plants takes in radioactive atoms via water, air and fertilizers contains no more radioactive atoms per unit of weight than anything else you ingest. The only difference is that while your lungs take in less than a gram of tobacco smoke matter per pack, the food and beverages bring in thousands time more, hence thousands times more radioactive atoms.
>For example, from a glass of plain water, which is the least dangerous among the foods and beverages, you will ingest as many radioactive atoms as you will from 3-10 packs of cigarettes

>doubt

*bet

The harm of smoking is inflated (((jewish))) propaganda. People do not know how to smoke. They take the smoke into the lungs. It is not right. Earlier smoked only Cigars and pipes. In the US, mostly chewed tobacco.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_tobacco Cigarettes are a recent invention (((jewish)))
Nicotine should be absorbed through the oral mucosa, not through the lungs. On the anti-smoking posters to people show a light of smoking miners. If you drink 15 cups of coffee a day, you too can make heart problems or even cancer. The optimal solution of the use of a nicotine it's snus. The growth of Alzheimer's and Parkinson diseases may be associated with anti-tobacco propaganda. Smoking relaxes, lets concentrate, improves brain function. Masons do not want that people to be smarter and assembly. When white people en masse smoked (and drank real tea) they ruled the world.

That doesn't sound correct.

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

>These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

>why smoking is bad

It costs too fucking much.
That's why I quit, fuck $40 25pack of tailermades bullshit.
Fuck $72 for a 50gram pouch for RYO.
Fuck the additives the government made the tobacco companies add to the papers to make smokes snuff out quicker (to stop fires in bed or someshit)

If I was in the US, I'd probably still smoke because it's something like $3 a pack over there.

>The often repeated tale of "300 X-rays per year"
this sounds like something a 3rd grader would say. average annual background radiation dose in the US is about 300 mRem. additional annual dose to smokers of 1-2 packs a day is approximately 8000 mRem.
you will ingest as many radioactive atoms as you will from 3-10 packs of cigarettes
> from a glass of plain water, which is the least dangerous among the foods and beverages, you will ingest as many radioactive atoms as you will from 3-10 packs of cigarettes
almost as comical as it is devoid of truth. first of all, the number "radioactive atoms" means absolutely nothing, as dose/dose rate is a function of radiation type/energy (which is isotope dependant), and distance from source. i could ingest 500 trillion "radioactive atoms" of say Pd-103 and receive a massively lower dose rate than a much smaller amount of something like Po-210

I can't wait until people like this realize what the real cause of cancers actually are, because it doesn't have anything to do with smoking.

journal.crossfit.com/2016/07/cancer-loves-cookies.tpl

Notice how the diet mentioned that is actually not causative is the diet many other healthy countries have, like Japan or Greece. No one there has lung cancer or other cancers for the most part, while in America it's the opposite.

>If high blood glucose and high insulin are provokers of mechanisms of cancer initiation … then you have to say, ‘OK, if you remove these stimuli, then you’re removing the causes for many cancers,’” Fine continued. “You’re not removing the cause for lung cancer, because lung cancer is primarily associated with smoking, (but) other cancers are clearly associated with this in a dramatic way.”

While it does mention that lung cancer isn't relevant to the carbs/sugar discussion. There's this source as well that directly states the carbs and sugar risk raise lung cancer by 49 percent.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-03-08-carbs-linked-to-lung-cancer-study-finds-/

It's all about how one interprets the results and the results are clearly that carbs have an obvious causative relationship, while smoking does not, it's a case of correlation =/= causation. The real causative factor (maybe along with genetic quirks which is a common reason for cancer) was under the noses of the scientists the whole time.

boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/an-analysis-the-doll-and-hill-study-smoking-and-carcenoma-of-the-lung-1950-the-hospital-study/

Smoke inhalation causes inflammation in the lungs, displacing oxygen which results in cellular death in the lining of the lungs.

As far as we know, cancer is caused by mutations in DNA/RNA. These mutations occur randomly when a cell is created.

Since smoke displaces oxygen and causes cellular death, this increases the rate at which the cells must be replaced, increasing the odds of a random cancerous mutation.

The end.

It's bad, no one's here to say it isn't, but our society is more at risk and accosted by the things freely added to our food and bodily-applied products, than cigarettes and alcohol.

...does that not reaffirm what he just said?

>doesn't even make you intoxicated or high
Confirmed for bum puffer.

>he doesn't even get a headrush!

That just reinforces the idea that I'm right though, so thanks?

I thought he was implying smoking was harmful but there were other causes of lung cancer.

I'm saying smoking isn't harmful and that there were always other things responsible for lung cancer.

no. cigarettes irradiate lung tissue, and alcohol shrinks the brain.

>smoking isn't harmful
>breathing in toxic materials, tar, and radioactive material
>healthy

Again, see Just because someone says something is harmful doesn't mean it is, proving how and why is more important. Plenty of interpretations of recent and old science imply a protective effect or harmless bronchial dialation of the lungs, but the mainstream media won't comment.

i studied nuclear engineering, and work as a physicist in the radiation phys dept of a medical manufacturer that literally makes radioactive sources to kill cancerous cells. smoking 1-2 packs a day will give a person a greater radiation dose than is allowed for radiation workers (8 Rem annually, vs 5 Rem allowed for radiation workers by the NRC, our facility typically allows fewer than 2 Rem). that's not even counting the health effects of breathing in hot tar and gases, that's just from stochastic effects from internal radiation exposure

Apparently the idea of it being protective is unacceptable to even consider either.

sott.net/article/226999-Smoking-Helps-Protect-Against-Lung-Cancer

You smell like shit, look like shit, and are addicted like shit.

Honestly I couldn't care less if the reasons are all lies. The less shit you or I have to deal with is a plus.

everyone smokes the same type/brand of cigarettes
>everyone has the same diet
>everyone lives in an area of equivalent air pollution
this is why idiots shouldn't try to draw conclusions from large metadata sets. there is no control or isolation of specific parameters. you can't be objective in your analysis

Start smoking regularly and you'll realize why and how it's bad for the human body fucktard.

Well, Japan has a significantly smaller case of lung cancer/lung disease and heart problems despite having some of the the highest number of smokers, they also think radon gas is protective. They call it the Japanese paradox. It sounds more like the lack of alcohol and western dietary choices may actually be the reason as to why they aren't as sick, which has nothing to do with smoking.

Smoking is protective against ulcerative colitis. The jews want you to shit your brains out though. It's also one of the best weight loss tools out there and the rise of the fatasses is 1:1 correlated with drop in smoking.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014383/

I think the guy in that link was referring to organic tobacco with no additives (like American spirit) being good for the human body, not necessarily other brands.

But there is distortion of the meaning
Here is the exact quote:
Bearing in mind what I said about ALL the patients (both LC and non-LC) being involved, the difference in the percentages cannot just be lightly brushed aside, as Doll attempted to do. In this case, I shall quote the whole paragraph about inhaling:
"Another difference between smokers is that some inhale and others do not. All patients who smoked were asked whether or not they inhaled, and the answers given by the lung-carcinoma and non-cancer control patients were as follows: of the 688 lung-carcinoma patients who smoked (men and women) 61.6% said they inhaled and 38.4% said they did not; the corresponding figures for the 650 patients with other diseases were 67.2% inhalers and 32.8% non-inhalers.
It would appear that lung-carcinoma patients inhale slightly less often than other patients. However, the difference is not large, and if the lung-carcinoma patients are compared with all the other patients interviewed, and the necessary allowance is made for sex and age, the difference becomes insignificant."

Fisher did not agree that the difference was insignificant. In fact, he said that inhaling seemed to be protective to a certain extent. That may be so, but what bothers me is Doll’s apparent attempt to brush the matter aside. Does that imply a certain bias?
It is interesting to note that the question about inhaling was dropped from the much larger Doctors Study which followed.

>tell me why smoking is bad
>but don't use government studies or science or any reliable resource

you're not actually this stupid right?

nicotine has proven cognitive benefits

I quit for 6 months and almost killed myself, i will take problems in 50 years, my grandad has smoked 72 years and is over 80 now. I have no intention of living past 60.

>science I don't understand is shit science

stupid people should just be shot desu

>government studies
>pharmaceutical industry funded """"science""""
>reliable

KEKEKEKEKEKEKE

>smoke marijuana
>makes you choke and cough for holding it in
>smoke cigarettes
>very smooth, hardly even noticeable that it's in your lungs

I'd think weed smoke would be arguable worse in general but also, you're not really compelled to inhale nearly as much weed as you are with cigarettes

>>government studies
yeah, the national lab system really just turns out bunk science..

>>smoke marijuana
>>makes you choke and cough for holding it in
>>smoke cigarettes
>>very smooth, hardly even noticeable that it's in your lungs
>what are filters

Try smelling a big good ole puff of Car exhaust, If you cough, Tell yourself it's nothing and keep breathing in.

>we're made to breath oxygen. not other undesirable molecules.

Obviously diet is the main cause of cancer.

Inhaling cigarette smoke certainly isn't helping your lungs though is it?

This has to be bait. Nobody is stupid enough to believe smoking is not a bad thing, right?

I've cut filters off regular cigarettes before and when the smoke's in your lungs it's still very smooth, it just burns the back of your throat. The only other negative besides burning your throat is tobacco leaves in your mouth

yeah, it does
how can you be on Cred Forums and trust the government?

i'm intelligent and not ridiculously ignorant

>nobody can think that this thing that I don't like isn't bad

Genius who created the foundation of modern statistical science says hi.

agreed right here. smoking keeps your weight down and maintains a slim, trim figure.

either than that though it's absolute bullshit that reduces your vitality.

I mean, I used to smoke, and that was when my body looked its best. but I quit a few years ago, now I have love handles and a hank hill ass but I also feel better than ever.

ah so you weren't joking.

you really ARE that stupid.

nah you're right, smoking doesn't have any negative side effects
smoke a pack a day.

Are you seriously implying they don't? All they do is cherry pick and rig data so it fits the conclusions they're looking for. Government science has always been like that.

It's the terpenes and cannabinoids that make you cough, the old addage that the more you cough the more you get off is in direct correlation to the quality of the weed.

there is a study done by UCLA showing that cannabis has a reverse effect of cigarette smoking

obviously not

Stop and think for a second. Whoever isn't funded by the government is private sector.

Now, let's use our brain caps here.

Who. Is. In. The. Private. Sector?

That's right! Pharmaceuticals!

Now, there's genetic modding stuff like Monsanto, but they work with making food. NOT drugs or try to study the human body.

Fucking bait thread.

so what science CAN you trust then, retard?

>my own brain ofc

please... just start smoking as much as you can a day

or better yet just shoot yourself so you can stop inflicting your stupidity on the Internet

1000x This. City bitches who complain about one guy smoking in the street are blind. Want fresh air leave the city.

Yeah but it lasts 10 seconds man.

A high for ants??

Benzapyrene is a molecule formed in the combustion of hydrocarbons (i.e. it gets made when you burn a cigarette or run a car).
By binding to DNA it contorts the DNA double helix, and causes strain on the DNA, which leads to breakages and thereby mutations.

>Japanese men smoke more than American men
>American male smokers are 40% more likely than American non-smokers to develop lung cancer. Japanese male smokers are only 6% more likely to develop lung cancer
>Female smoking prevalence hasn't increased in a decade in Japan, yet their lung cancer rate has increased

Yeah. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but fuck, something is definitely up here.

>so what science CAN you trust then, retard?
open and transparent, reproducible results. you know, actual science

My fucking sides
>tada-cancer.jpg

DNA breakage and repair is a whole different beast, lad.

a description isn't a resource you imbecile

basically all you've said is that ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT is untrustworthy.

it astounds me to know that you actually think this is an intelligent argument

if you're going to tell us how stupid we are for falling for your bait thread...
right now would be a great time

...please?

What exactly does the government/the Jews gain by attacking smoking? Certainly not tax revenue.

air quality, radiation, japs generally have better genetics and live longer than whites, obesity, second hand smoke, etc.

there are a lot of factors, fuck off you CTR shill, not everything is a conspiracy

only the untrustworthy stuff can't be trusted

we've had pretty clear scientific standards for a while- it's not my fault government shills refuse to abide by them to push an agenda

make sure to go drink a big glass of rbst enriched fat free milk! oh yeah and never eat eggs, red meat, or bread again

>increased spreading of a lung cancer gene

I know guys let's set this grass of fire and then inhale it through our mouth where it's not filtered at all!

So you want to basically inhale vaporized ashes of a dead plant because they make you feel good?

Yes!

But what about the fireplace see how sooty and black it is? And we clean it to yet it's still black with all these fine particles. How is your body going to clean that out?

It's not they're totally armless! It's just ash guys!

>How is your body going to clean that out?
what are cilia?

>radiation
Then the Japanese would have a higher rate of cancer, as they were closer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Chernobyl and radiation from China.

>air quality
Air quality in Japan is worse than in the US. By about 20%.

>second hand smoke
Why would you assume that a country with LESS smoking would have MORE second hand smoke, especially when the other country is a shit ton more dense?

>obesity, genetics
THERE we go. Thanks, you lazy fat fucking nigger.

I hate it when other ppl answer for the OP...

anyways.

unless you or OP can provide a reputable resource
which you can't
and I'm sure your "resources" will prove to be a great laugh for all of us
if you can even find any
but UNTIL then you don't have an argument
except
>all science is wrong
>because I disagree with it

which, in case you can't tell is excrement

>cilia
And how exactly do they get rid of the ash? Is it expelled somewhere? Do you have has in your stool? Your urine? Where exactly does it go?

>What is cilia paralysis?

The pharmaceutical industry has a huge interest in competing with other drug sellers and replacing their oppositions products with their own, is what I was trying to say. They have a gigantic conflict of interest when they're trying to sell cessation products and other products that treat things smoking can also potentially treat. Smoking used to be a popular remedy for asthma decades ago, but you won't see anything regarding that today.

Maybe you should look around and consider the possobilty of ulterior motives from people making outlandish claims regarding the perceived negative and harmful effects of smoking. Especially since the bullshit surrounding anti-smoking has gotten more and more audacious.

all you gotta do is practice actual science. you're so caught up in sucking government dick that you refuse to see what's plainly in front of you

I'm not discrediting you or anything, I thought it was humorous to have the cancer in an action-style bulletin

Epple don't die off like hey used to and have a chance to bear kids. Those kids can inherit lung cancer genes.

Did I really have to spell that out for you?

the govt has the best facilities and resources and often the best scientists and engineers. visit the campus of LLNL or LANL sometime, if for no other reason that to just leave your fucking tin foil basement shelter

you dumb faggot, I was just listing all the factors that one should consider. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The real reason is diet. They eat better by a longshot, so they're fine. Greece is the same way, apparently.

*people didn't die off like they used to

Smoking is bad because you're a beta faggot that was socially pressured into sucking a little tabacco stick on fire for no reason.

I see. The reaction scheme is from a lecture on epoxide chemistry. Hence it simplifies the parts that aren't very related to epoxides. The omitted parts are non-homologous end joining and recombanitorial repair.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare
short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction
or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term
increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.
nber.org/papers/w14790.pdf

nhs.uk/smokefree/why-quit/smoking-health-problems

medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10566.php

healthline.com/health/smoking/effects-on-body

OP, you're a retard. Go home. Bot to mention it's fucking disgusting to see, smell and be around. It yellows your teeth and wrinkles your skin.

Damn I though you had some credibility but you kind of killed it. I am greentexting some of the link since it may have viruses, but here you go.

smokershistory.com/Koop.htm

>C. Everett Koop didn't even play a small role in "his" first report on smoking. It was all decided beforehand, and written for him, by the anti-smoking Lasker conspirators: "My first step in the anti-smoking crusade came with the 1982 Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, then the most serious indictment of cigarette smoking the Public Health Service had ever made. During those long months of my confirmation struggle I had heard words here and there about this upcoming report, but no one had thought to include me in its preparation. It was not until the early weeks of 1982 that I began to realize that I would have to present the report at my first major press conference since assuming office."

>Koop's only role in that report was to memorize the script he'd been given, just like an actor, and then play his role at the press conference. "As the scheduled date for the press conference, February 22, 1982, drew closer, my tension began to mount. I spent the weekend before the Monday press conference reviewing the report once more, going over my briefing book, and, I admit, dealing with no small amount of nervousness. My concerns were not only for my own reputation, but also for the reputation of the Office of the Surgeon General. Maintaining the integrity of the office of the Surgeon General had become one of my objectives from the first time my name was associated with the office." "Integrity?" There was no integrity, when Koop was nothing but the obsequious pawn of a corrupt conspiracy that ought to be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Those statistical "decreases" are complete bullshit designed to justify smoking bans, nothing more.

>I don't have a resource
>or any logical arguments
k

why do you think smokers have so much phlegm? what do you think is in that

Also (green texted so no one needs to click the link).

smokershistory.com/index.htm

>Assortative mixing as a source of bias in epidemiological studies of sexually transmitted infections: the case of smoking and human papillomavirus. P Lemieux-Mellouki, M Drolet, J Brisson, EL Franco, MC Boily, I Baussano, M Brisson. Epidemiol Infect 2015 Nov 20:1-10 [Epub ahead of print].
For studies examining risk factors of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), confounding can stem from characteristics of partners of study subjects, and persist after adjustment for the subjects' individual-level characteristics. Two conditions that can result in confounding by the subjects' partners are: (C1) partner choice is assortative by the risk factor examined and, (C2) sexual activity is associated with the risk factor. The objective of this paper is to illustrate the potential impact of the assortativity bias in studies examining STI risk factors, using smoking and human papillomavirus (HPV) as an example. We developed an HPV transmission-dynamic mathematical model in which we nested a cross-sectional study assessing the smoking-HPV association. In our base case, we assumed (1) no effect of smoking on HPV, and (2) conditions C1-C2 hold for smoking (based on empirical data). The assortativity bias caused an overestimation of the odds ratio (OR) in the simulated study after perfect adjustment for the subjects' individual-level characteristics (adjusted OR 1·51 instead of 1·00). The bias was amplified by a lower basic reproductive number (R 0), greater mixing assortativity and stronger association of smoking with sexual activity. Adjustment for characteristics of partners is needed to mitigate assortativity bias.

The Surgeon General's job is to be a spokesman for the PHSCC. It's not his job to do that actual experiments.

Fuck it, I don't trust the website's safety so I'll just post the blog version.

realsmokersrights.wordpress.com

Basically explains how viruses and other factors cause cancer and heart problems that are erroneously blamed on smoking.

no
>We find no evidence that legislated U.S. smoking bans were associated with
short‐term reductions in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction or other
diseases in the elderly, children or working‐age adults.

and stuff like that, see p. 22

Regardless, the actual experiments that he spoke for were probably fraudulent.

So... You're agreeing with me then?

The experiments he references are all pretty well-known ones (British Physicians study, Swedish conscripts study). Although he doesn't actually put any of them in his reference list for some reason (only has 3 references despite using data from at least 8 papers).
That said, all the data itself is pretty conclusive.

yes, I just explained
Also vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

it drains your wallet which could be used for improving your body

best argument you'll see

/thread

The doctors study was already shit on upthread, though.

There's a large list of studies from places like Oxford journal linking viruses to all of the cancers and heart problems smoking is linked to. The link is probably virus ridden () but the argument is that these various I used and STDs were the actual source of these illnesses. There's a blog version of the same source but it's not nearlty as extensive ().

>I used

*viruses

That's due to the manner in which viruses reproduce. Viruses are well documented in causing cancers.
Doesn't necessarily debunk the smoking research due to minor conflation. That's why there are large sample sizes in all of them. It helps to normalise the population of both sides.

In 1968 another study - the Whitehall study - was undertaken with the participation of 1,400 smoking British civil servants divided in two similar groups: one was encouraged and counseled to quit, the other was left on their own.

Both groups were followed for 10 years, the results were surprising: The group that quit showed no improvement of life expectancy, nor any change in frequency of death from cancer or heart attacks, with one exception: certain cancers were more than twice as common as in the group that quit.

The study was extended to 20 years of follow-up with the same results.

This type of study is called a randomized controlled intervention trial and is the "gold standard" to compare a new treatment to another one or no treatment at all.

cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=33856.20;wap2

it seems too common to be a coincidence.

realsmokersrights.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/a-hidden-bias-exposed/#more-121
realsmokersrights.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/cmv-accelerates-epigenetic-aging/#more-79
realsmokersrights.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/the-2015-gallup-poll/

Some of the links on the blog may have viruses but one thing that stood out was heart disease actually being caused by cytomegalovirus.

Already posted a link to that up here

I posted that to point out that he copied that slightly altered quote from a forum

Is there an issue with doing that?