It's called junk science and junk statistics to manipulate the outcomes per agenda. The demoshits are notorious for using junk science & statistics to get laws passed, freedoms removed. Regardless how you felt about smoking, a legal product…the Demodouchebags used junk science regurgitated by MSM to not only ostracize/ make pariahs any smokers and spread junk science and statistic to insinuate that 2nd hand smoke caused cancer, passive smoke caused cancer etc…to pass the clean air act and to ban smoking in public places, public housing, subsidized housing, parks, etc.all based on junk science and statistic. Ironic after passed lung cancers continued to climb until the cdc came out with them being non-smoking related lung cancers….how convenient. Meanwhile, Big Pharma make billions pushing their brands of tobacco in patches, anti-depressants used to quit smoking and other related drugs.
Always follow the money, who benefits in control profits or power.
Thus lung cancer in never smokers would rank among the most common causes of cancer mortality in the U.S. if considered to be a separate category. Slightly more than half of the lung cancers caused by factors other than active smoking occur in never smokers. These recent laboratory and clinical observations highlight the importance of defining the genetic and environmental factors responsible for the development of lung cancer in never-smokers. A large fraction of lung cancers occurring in never-smokers cannot be definitively associated with established environmental risk factors, highlighting the need for additional epidemiologic research in this area.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170525/
There were good reasons from the beginning to doubt that smoking bans could really deliver the promised results, but anti-smoking advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception. Today’s tobacco control movement is guided by ideology as much as it is by science, prone to hyping politically convenient studies regardless of their merit and ostracizing detractors.
Now that’s not nothing, but other recent research may be even more surprising. “No clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer,” read a 2013 headline in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, hardly a pro-tobacco publication. That was a report on a cohort study tracking 76,000 women that failed to detect a link between the disease and secondhand smoke. The finding comports with existing literature suggesting that the effect is borderline and concentrated on long-term, high levels of exposure.
https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-as-bad-as-we-thought.html
Featured Articles in Oncology
In the News
Non-smokers are at increasing risk for lung cancer
Soha Mahmoud, for MDLinx | June 10, 2019
The prevalence of lung cancer in people who have never smoked is more common than many realize—and it’s on the rise, despite declining rates of smoking. The relative proportion, absolute number, and rates of lung cancers are all increasing in never-smokers. However, because lung cancer is traditionally associated with smoking, the risk in never-smokers remains largely underrecognized and underdiagnosed. In fact, among the number of Americans to be newly diagnosed with lung cancer this year, up to 15% have never smoked.
https://www.mdlinx.com/oncology/article/3757
A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.
The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.
The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance." Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes "there's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or it's not," and the reported hazard ratio was not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#7f4e5f2665d4
American Medical Association (pacs and individ) Overall Hillary & Democrat supporters/campaign contributions to. Liberal Org. 2016 proves it!
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs//summary?toprecipcycle=2016&topnumcycle=2016&contribcycle=2020&lobcycle=2020&outspendcycle=2014&id=D000000068
Don't Fall For The Bull Shit!
There is no unbiased CDC study, model or statistic!!!!