It would take hundreds of pages to cover all the studies on tobacco from past decades from independent sources. Most of the following studies are never seen or heard of by the general population. Some of these studies are repeats from my other web pages. I've decided to put these studies all together here in one place for easy access. I'll be adding more as time goes on. They are endless.

 

Basically, the only studies that are ever seen or heard of by the general public are those that of course are anti-tobacco. The general public basically never looks at these anti-tobacco studies and how they were done, or  by whom they were done. Most people  simply listen to those on the money side of the issue of anti-tobacco, as in,  tobacco is bad, causes lung cancer, and today just about any medical problem one could think of. The facts are actually quite different.  Most people today have been so brainwashed over past decades by those on the money side of the issue of tobacco, that they simply cannot see what has actually happened since most of the people have given up the tobacco habit. Facts are very difficult to deal with, and most people simply can't deal with information that is contrary to what they have believed for many years.  However, all an honest person must do is open their eyes and observe - Look around - empirical evidence is hard to beat. 

Today, we have more people being treated with drugs and various  therapies and  medical procedures for a laundry list of medical problems, most of which were relatively rare when two to three times the number of people were using tobacco products.  

 

Most people today simply listen to news reports through the years such as shown in the picture above - Starting with "A new study shows" and they simply assume it's true. Few people ever question. If a new study from a University for example, says an increase in a certain disease is higher among smokers, few people question. The University that did the study is never questioned.
Example - How many were in the study? What type of study was done? Who paid for the study?$  Was a donation or grant made from an anti-tobacco group or the pharmaceutical industry?$  The questions are endless, though few ever question.
Decades of conditioning or brainwashing is very powerful.

 

 

Let's start with one of the biggest wealthy anti-tobacco, tax exempt non-profit organizations in the world.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) 

Study #1 - 1956 - The American Cancer Society (ACS)

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. $

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.

Side note: This study in California is interesting. The liberal nanny state of California today, has one of the lowest percentage of smokers in the country. It was one of the leaders in the anti-tobacco movement.$ High taxes on tobacco products and bans on smoking etc.

Study #2 - 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. $

The Big Smokers of the world

Deaths are per 100,000 population

Definitions - AD (alzheimer's disease,  PD Parkinson's disease, and top five cancers   

Country	AD	PD	Smoker %	Lung	Breast	Prostate	Colon	Pancreas
2014	deaths	deaths	(males)	deaths	deaths	deaths	deaths	deaths
Russia	2.17	0.00	59.00	28.91	21.84	17.71	20.49	7.97
Greece	2.74	1.54	52.60	29.71	17.61	14.62	9.91	7.10
S. Korea	12.32	3.88	49.80	25.69	6.29	6.25	13.47	7.39
China	4.71	0.74	47.60	38.84	6.10	3.19	9.11	4.13
Israel	19.90	2.34	41.20	21.25	21.32	10.15	14.70	9.16
Romania	3.82	0.95	36.90	31.38	18.77	13.06	16.93	8.09
Japan	4.23	1.52	33.70	21.44	10.86	6.90	14.88	9.35
Poland	3.36	0.93	32.40	39.52	16.72	16.34	18.08	8.06
Hungary	15.23	1.70	32.00	54.26	22.23	17.02	29.01	10.85
Potugal	6.61	2.26	31.50	21.52	17.72	19.01	20.02	6.85
Spain	26.90	3.30	31.30	27.15	15.93	15.16	18.97	7.16
Argentina	6.44	2.12	29.50	21.48	22.76	20.61	15.51	8.50
Italy	16.96	2.72	28.30	25.15	19.94	11.53	14.58	7.76
Belgium	27.23	4.15	26.50	35.67	24.94	15.79	16.32	7.68
Average-->	10.19	1.88	37.35	30.14	17.36	13.38	16.57	7.86
Comparison
USA	45.58	4.51	19.50	35.04	19.36	14.81	12.95	8.56

State	AD	PD	Smoker %	Lung	Breast	Prostate	Colon	Pancreas
	deaths	deaths	(males)	deaths	deaths	deaths	deaths	deaths
California	36.14	7.59	11.70	33.40	20.40	20.00	13.50	10.40

A few old studies that never see the light of day: Far too much money envolved.$

Study #3 - Lung cancer and smokers: When most smokers began to smoke filtered cigarettes

Lung cancer among non-smokers has been increasing while those among smokers has been decreasing. Possibly because of filters which nearly every study consistently shows decreases the risk by as much as 20 to 30 percent.

Study in tobacco related cancers  1982 - 1985.
Funded by: National cancer institute (NCI) (of the department of health and human services)
Apparently this government institution didn't get the memo? Ever hear of this on the MSM? 

Study #4 - Asbestos and smoking:

Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers.
Ever hear of this study? 

Institute of immunology and experimental therapy, (Poland)

Study #5 - Asbestos and cancer

Relative risks of lung cancer for asbestos workers was highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and death from mesothelioma. 
Perhaps the scientists that did this study never got the memo from Big Anti-Tobacco money?

University of London school of hygiene and tropical medicine.

Study #6 - Lung volume

Lung volume perimeters were found to decrease with age, but there was no significant modification related to tobacco consumption. OOPS

Institute d' Etudes et Recherches Pneumophtisiologiques (Institute of studies on tuberculosis, France)

Anti-tobacco fraud by our own government agency - And millions believe what they say about climate change?

 

Study #7 - The EPA  tried to get away with this at the real beginning of the war on tobacco. They used false information as all do to date on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).  Fortunately, there was a judge that wouldn't stand for the fraud. But it of course did no good. The anti-tobacco war continued to this day based on lies. 

 

Another example of anti-tobacco misinformation is the landmark 1993 report in which the Environmental Protection Agency declared that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a dangerous carcinogen that kills three thousand Americans yearly. Five years later, in July 1998, federal judge William L. Osteen lambasted the EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer," and withholding "significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis." Both "the record and EPA's explanation," concluded the court, "make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results." A more damning assessment is difficult to imagine, but here are the court's conclusions at greater length, in its own words.

EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry [input thereby] violating the [Radon Research] Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiological information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes Cancer. [Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 4 F. Supp. 2d 435, 465-66 (M.D.N.C. 1998)]

 

Ever hear about this in the Main Stream Media?

from day one 

Before looking at a few independent and government studies on tobacco that have been done through the years, we'll look at how many studies are done to get the results desired by those doing the studies. As one simple example - Different groups of people to study, changes everything.

 

There are many groups or categories of people throughout the world. A look at two that are quite different from each other.

 

Group #1 - This group is typically of low income, has high unemployment, lower education levels, and live a sedentary or inactive life style. This group often consumes a lot of processed and fast food, (a poor diet). This group typically has a high percentage of over-weight and obesity levels. This group most often has a higher percentage of users of illegal drugs, alcohol use and of course tobacco. Because of all of this, this group has a shorter life expectancy from birth, a shorter number of healthy years lived, and considerably more illnesses of all types such as heart disease, cancers, diabetes etc.

Those in this group, wether they use tobacco products or not, are unhealthy - PERIOD

Group #2 - This group has higher income, little unemployment, higher education levels, and live an active life style. This group typically consumes less junk and processed food. This group has far less over-weight and obesity, and often exercises. This group usually uses less illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.  Most in this group today, don't smoke. Since smoking has long since been banned in the work place, the percentage of smokers is considerably less.

Wether they smoke of not, this group is far healthier, has a longer life expectancy etc. - PERIOD

 

It would be very easy to blame early death, cancers and heart disease  etc., on tobacco in group #1. But would it be true?