Huge wrote:
On 2009-02-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of
passive smoking - it doesn't exist.

None so blind, etc.

Where did you copy & paste that lot from? Sorry, Gogle may be good, but you
have to read the results & understand them.

Just a few to mention.
(4) This WHO study was withdrawn after it was found the results had been
deliberately biased.
(5) is unpublished & therefore bollox.
(7) & (8) are completely irrelevant to the passisive smoking debate.
(9) Sir Richard Doll is on public record as saying the risks of passive
smoking are irrelevant.
(10 - 39) are also completely & utterly irrelevant to any debate about
passive smoking.

As are the majority of the others that you have clearly never read. Go on,
admit it, you have never read a single one of the studies have you?

Typical rabid anti smoker, you will grab at any straw to suport your claims.

I can't be arsed to even look at the rest of the ****e you have Googled to
support your claim. I could find you 30+ studies, all credible & published
in scientific journals subject to critical peer review that show the
opposite - that non smoking partners of active smokers are less likely to
develop cancer, heart disease, diabeties & ingrowing toenails.

So lets avoid a ****ing contest. Lets cut to the chase.

Black Swan time.

Show me one single solitary death certificate anywhere in the world that
shows passive smoking as the cause of death. Just one and you have found
the Black Swan and my argument is dead in the water. Burden of proof is on
you.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk