🚀 go-pugleaf

anon3c67@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bruce Watson) wrote:

>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.

You forgot me Bruce. Smoking helps my asthma.