85 Percent of Smokers Regret Starting the Habit

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

Oh yea - I forgot to address the:
<quoted text>
It appears that probably the largest funder was the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation - you know - the foundation that was directly created by - and receives most of IT's FUNDS from their stocks in Johnson&Johnson - and of course J&J receives a LARGE portion of their profits from amost EVERY "Anti-smoker APPROVED" - "stop smoking" product on the market - WORLDWIDE!- Amazing how it ALL TIES TOGETHER - HUH??
Of course a couple other "funders" are:
The American Cancer Society - and The National Cancer Institute
AGAIN - Possibly the MOST CORRUPT "HEALTH" ORGAIZATIONs EVER!

Judged:

2

1

1

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Just who's eyes are you trying to "pull the wool over"???- old guy??
Here's a short Bio on ea. of the Authors
Fong - My research focuses on combining psychological theories and research methods with traditional epidemiological survey methods to evaluate the impact of TOBACCO CONTROL policies on entire populations of countries.- which pretty much explains the Gist if this study
Hammond - Dr. Hammond’s research focuses on population-level interventions , with a focus on policies and regulations that reach large segments of the population. Dr. Hammond’s research includes TOBACCO CONTROL policy in the areas of health communications, packaging, and product regulation
Fritz L. Laux - worked for the FDA on the economic analysis for its TOBACCO REGULATION initiative.
Mark P. Zanna - My area of research is the psychology of attitudes. In the domain of communication and persuasion, I have conducted research on overcoming resistance to change (e.g., subliminal priming and persuasion, self-affirmation and persuasion, and narrative persuasion).(a VooDoo doctor - mind control)
K. MICHAEL CUMMINGS Expert on TOBACCO CONTROL Policy - a professor in the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences.
Another VooDoo doctor
Ron Borland - His work is designed to understand the impact on smokers of TOBACCO CONTROL policies, help design better systems for regulating tobacco, understanding what is needed for optimum community-wide tobacco control, and identify barriers to stronger governmental tobacco control initiatives.
Dr. Hana Ross - is Strategic Director of International TOBACCO CONTROL Research Program at the American Cancer Society - Possibly the MOST CORRUPT ORGANIZATION EVER!
Just Google "American Cancer Society corruption" - mind boggling!
Oh - but it's peer reviewed!!- here's what a couple of EXPERTS say about that:
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, has stated:
"There seems to be
no study too fragmented
no hypothesis too trivial
no literature too biased or too egotistical
no DESIGN TOO WARPED
no methodology too bungled
no presentation of results too inaccurate, and too contradictory
no analysis too self-serving,
no argument too circular
no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified
for a paper to end up in print.”
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said here; “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — NOT THE VALIDITY — of a new finding....we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
And here is what is stated in the final paragraphs of the study
"We suspect that the prevalence of smoker regret in countries where the harms of smoking are not as widely recognized is
likely to be lower than that found in the present study."
EXACTLY WHAT I STATED IN MY FIRST POST - The REGRET that they find, is in DIRECT proportion to the LIES of the ANTI's

Judged:

3

3

3

helpful hints wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT'S. RIGHT OLD GUY!!!!!!
Smoking only kills one in three smokers.(Of course if you are a smoker in your 60s,the numbers are higher.)
That means smoking will not kill two of three smokers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Commonsenseman wrote:

<quoted text>
So.....if you can't disprove the data, attack the researchers/funding agencies?

Judged:

1

1

1

helpful hints wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT'S. RIGHT OLD GUY!!!!!!
Smoking only kills one in three smokers.(Of course if you are a smoker in your 60s,the numbers are higher.)
That means smoking will not kill two of three smokers.