Playing the "If they were lying about Covid, then, were they also lying about_____?" game can be entertaining, and I am not falling into the simplistic and false extreme/trendy thinking of, "They lied about covid, so they were lying about EVERYTHING…"
So, what about smoking tobacco? I've been doing a lot of thinking about it lately.
What about the supposed 'dangers' of tobacco? Especially the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in nonsmokers?
I think the campaign against tobacco was one of the earlier instances of Mass Formation Psychosis that is a clear antecedant to the present day Covid-hysteria.
"But it DOES cause cancer!" Well, the evidence is far less convincing than you might think. The "studies" are so similar to the recent fake "studies" using massaged, outright dishonest distortions of statistics that were used to promote the Covid scamdemic that it gives any honest person the chills…
WHY would they lie about it? They actually had a lot of motivation: How about they were trying to cover up for ACTUAL known causes of lung cancer, and thus they helped those who were to blame escape much more deserved anger and lawsuits?
Like… ASBESTOS. How many people who got lung cancer were exposed to asbestos? And since many of them in those days were also smokers or lived with smokers, they were easily misled into thinking it was tobacco to blame, WHEN IT REALLY WASN'T?
How about airborne RADIATION? The US government (as well as Russia and other countries) was testing nuclear bombs for DECADES. Many of these tests threw up TONS of radioactive material into the atmosphere! TONS! Year after year after year! Gee, do you think that might have caused one or two cases of cancer in the lungs of people who lived their lives downwind from these testing sites? Gee golly gee, huh?
There's more, too. Workers in chemical factories before there were better regulations, exposed to industrial chemicals, miners in coal mines, etc… DIRECT exposure to KNOWN and dangerous carcinogens. Unreported and unregulated industrial waste, dired turned to dust and then blown into the wind… Happens more often that you think.
How many of the cases of lung cancer would have happened even if tobacco had never existed at all? Even if no human had ever thought of inhaling the smoke of its leaves?
I don't mean to say that smoking four packs of cigarettes is good for your lungs. Take it easy, there fellah! Slow down.
BUT, what I am saying is that the extreme crackdown on the use of tobacco was NOT motivated for your health. The studies and statistics were falsified to make it appear to be far more dangerous than it is. Moderate use, respectful use is surely NOT as dangerous as THEY want you to believe.
And there's another possibility to add to the mix: what if tobacco use is beneficial? What if it is therapeutic for Alzheimers and Parkinson's? What if it is beneficial for those who are depressed? What if it helps with mental acuity and focus? In fact, all of the above is actually TRUE.
What if the pharmaceutical companies KNEW this, and knew that as the nation's population grew more aged, (baby boomers) it would need such a substance, and they saw this as a guarunteed HUGE market, demographically INEVITABLE, and thus tobacco was destined to be a direct competitor that needed to be destroyed so that they could replace tobacco with their own substandard, man-made, patented analoges to profit off the coming demand for medical 'cures' related to getting older?
I find it interesting.