🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <48b812$but@Mercury.mcs.com>, Ed Dambik <dambik@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>Bruce Watson (anon3c67@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>> In article <48744h$sv8@Mars.mcs.com>, Ed Dambik <dambik@MCS.COM> wrote:
>> >Bruce Watson (anon3c67@nyx.cs.du.edu) (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>> >> In article <47vtnc$l18@Mercury.mcs.com>, Ed Dambik <dambik@MCS.COM> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean money CORRUPTS the process? So when the anti-smoking funds 
>> >> >are passed out to various researchers (e.g., Glantz), the facts change 
>> >> >accordingly too? OK. Fair enough.
>> >
>> >> There is anti-smoking money and then there is tobacco MONEY.
>> >> With their MONEY, the tobacco companies have tried to rewrite scientific
>> >> knowledge with regard to the effects of tobacco. Happily, only
>> >> smokers believe them.
>> >
>> >I see. Anyone who disagrees must be tainted by tobacco money. 
>
>> Anyone who disagrees the results of tens of thousands of studies
>> spanning many decades that smoking is not harmful does so either
>> out of gross ignorance or has bought into propaganda paid for 
>> by tobacco money. Who else would spend a dime to try to refute 
>> the obvious?
>
>How come every single time I start arguing against ETS being a risk,
>you switch to primary smoking? Why is that? Don't you have an argument?

Sorry, thought this thread was about primary smoking.

The jury is still out with regards to the link between lung cancer
and ETS.

Our friends at alt.asthma told us, in no uncertain terms, that
ETS is harmful to them.