Most studies we hear about constantly are a joke. If you hear of a new study on the dangers of drinking coffee, and there are plenty of them, and you love coffee - not to worry - Keep looking and you'll find one that tells you what you want to hear.

Here  are  two studies recently published. I'll only show the titles here and a few lines. You can look up the whole text on your own.

#1 - The Coffee Deception: 13 Little Known Facts About Coffee

1. Caffeine is an alkaloid that the coffee plant uses to kill bugs, which eat its seeds.

The coffee plant also uses caffeine in the coffee pods to kill surrounding plants, so the coffee plant can attain more sunlight and grow larger. Caffeine is a pesticide, which causes genetic termination in living cells that come into contact with it.

You can find the whole article at Humans Are Free  website - search "coffee" or just Google coffee. You'll find study after study  saying coffee is good and coffee is bad. Flip a coin to decide which study to believe.

#2 - Drinking Coffee Reduces Risk of Death from All Causes, Landmark Study Finds

People who drink around three cups of coffee a day may live longer than non-coffee drinkers, a landmark study has found.

The findings come from the largest study of its kind, in which scientists analyzed data from more than half a million people across 10 European countries, including the UK, to explore the effect of coffee consumption on risk of mortality.

Which study do you want to believe?

Groundbreaking Research: Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer

Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms -- specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year -- the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria.

Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumors won't be discovered.

But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer.

In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer

This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age -- as early as 25 -- and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don't have breast cancer in their family trees.

One of thousands of studies on tobacco going back decades

1956 - The American Cancer Society (ACS)

In 1945, the non-profit American Cancer Society (ACS) was founded. In the mid to late 1950's  cancers, particularly lung cancers were on the rise. Why was this? The ACS in 1956 was given two consecutive grants that in today's money would equal approximately ten million dollars to find out if cigarette smoking was causing this increase in cancers.

After two years,  Dr. Charles S. Cameron, Medical and Scientific Director of the Society stated in summery the following. This took two years, and as stated above, ten million dollars in today's money.

This is only the summary because the entire report is many pages. Anyone today can read it in full on the Internet. At last check, no anti-smoking group or government agency has had it removed. This often happens with information that exposes the truth about many health subjects. However, with the Internet today, once something is uploaded for the people to see, it is there for eternity. You simply must search harder to find it.

Summery

The American Cancer Society has resolved to support, as its resources permit, research efforts to identify whatever cancer-inciting substances may be in tobacco and its products and to find the means of eliminating them. In the meantime it is committed to setting the facts, as they stand today and as they accumulate, before the people--all the people--of this country.
It does not hold that smoking causes cancer of the lung. It does not propose to tell the public not to smoke. It does intend to equip the national conscience with the information by which it can make up its own mind fairly. If time should establish the innocence of tobacco, such a course will prove less blameworthy than failure to suggest caution to smokers and potential smokers of cigarettes today.

As one of my doctor friends puts it: If the degree of association which has allegedly been established between cancer of the lung and smoking were shown to exist between cancer of the lung, and say, eating spinach, no one would raise a hand against the proscription of spinach from the national diet.

Perhaps the ten million dollar grant was not enough?$  They have apparently long since changed their mind. $

In my personal opinion, the ACS is possibly one of the biggest cancer research fraud organizations in the world. Sure they help people with volunteers through bad times that have been diagnosed with cancer, This is great. They might consider sharing a little of the billions they've  taken in tax free with some of these volunteers. In my opinion, they constantly publish downright fraudulent and or misleading information on smoking to keep this gigantic cancer research scam going.

They are in bed with mega corporations that are in the business of cancer causing products and the cancer treatment industry.

Smoking cessation and mortality among 118,000 Californians, 1960 - 1997

Another study that would never see the light of day by the general public. (Article)

There is no proof that smoking causes cancer. And now hard evidence (on actual deaths, not virtual ones is beginning to emerge. This is a very interesting study by Clark Heath of the American Cancer Society (ACS). Note the statement in this abstract: "These results indicate there has been no important decline in either the absolute or relative death rates from all causes and lung cancer for cigarette smokers as a whole compared with never smokers in this large cohort study, in spite of a substantial degree of smoking cessation."  If smoking causes cancer - especially lung cancer - and considering a reduction of smokers by over 40% since the 1960 when the study began, why don't we see a proportional decrease in lung cancer rates today?

Moreover, why has this study (published in 1999) never seen the light of day in newspapers and prime time television, while all the junk science against smoking gets continual coverage? And why hasn't the ACS promoted this study in the same way it promotes anti-smoking junk science? 

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. $

Who's suffering? More people are now suffering with cancer than when far more people were smoking. The search for the real culprit that causes cancer has been put on the back burner because of the false assumptions and lies about smoking being the main cause.

Who's profiting? Big Pharma and Big Medical prescribing billions of dollars in smoking cessation drugs that are with side effects that are dangerous to one's health, weakening the natural immune system causing more illness most often requiring more drug intervention. Billion dollar non-profit cancer research industries. Countless anti-smoking non-profits. Governments from local to federal level in billions of dollars collected annually in taxes. And now, a Trillion dollar cancer industry that was non-existent when three to four times the number of people smoked. Non-smoking today is likely at least a trillion dollar industry throughout the world in more ways than one could imagine.