I have always accepted the idea of smoking causing lung cancer, even as a smoker, because, well, it's logical. Take something unnatural into yourself and there is a risk of harm. It cannot be said that deliberately inhaling smoke is natural, therefore there must be some risk. On the other hand, I have long been certain that the biggest cause of all forms of cancer, heart attacks and many other illnesses is stress. That's also logical. As the 24/7 culture grows, so does the rate of cancer. In my last job, leaving work at the time when they stopped paying me was widely seen as 'lazy' and not working unpaid weekends was seen as 'not a team player'. I smoke and drink far more now than I did then, but the chest pains are all but gone. The work is as hard, or harder, but the pressure is reduced.
Frank Davis has caused me to question the assumption of the link between smoking and cancer. While I had already ridiculed the smoking beagles as just as likely to be stress-induced cancers as smoking-induced, Frank went into far more detail in his research.
I am further persuaded to Frank's side by this article and its blatant lies.
While preventing smoking is key to reducing lung cancer, most of the work to encourage people to give up cigarettes has been focused on men, the report published by the South West Public Health Observatory indicates.
I recall those ads where women who smoke were likened to 'kissing an ashtray'. Who remembers the beautiful woman spurned by a dweeb because she had a cigarette? I remember thinking 'she can do so much better than that wiry twerp'. The focus has never been on men. It has always been on smokers. To the fundamentalists, we don't have a gender. We are not even human.
So it is a lie and the antismokers will, nonetheless, grasp it in their bony little prematurely aged fingers and cry 'Truth' because it is what they want to believe.
Smoking prevalence has been reducing for many years. Asthma, lung cancer and a host of respiratory illnesses are increasing. There is a clear inverse relationship but none dare point it out. It does not mean that smoking protects. It most certainly does suggest that something else is causing the problem. Something nobody is looking for.
On this issue, at least, the science is far from 'settled'.