I wondered if your use of the past tense should be taken to mean that they are no longer in business, so I googled. It appears that they are still going.

Interesting stuff in the Wikipedia article. It notes that the Surgeon General warnings about tobacco still apply, and in fact they have to include a disclaimer that says "no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette".

So now I guess I'm back to being surprised and a bit suspicious about the lack of evidence for smoked marijuana causing cancer, as opposed to tobacco being very clearly linked to cancer...

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

Fox news is America's Cancer.

Congratulations! Your comment on God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 31 Badge!

Your video, God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Read the link please. It says anything more than 300g of RED meat, and ANY processed meat consumption will lead to cancer.

Most people go over these recommendations every single day.

I've never conceded anything. I'm not responding to your rant. I just want this to be clear in case anyone reads your rant and mistakes your loudness for insight.

Ok, so in a very narrow specific set of circumstances it's correct, but in general it's not. That seems to be an important point not made clear in the video.

Edit: Lazy cancer? First I've heard it called that. Not sure what you mean " you can do more harm than good." Are you suggesting that treatment is worse than the disease?

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

PSA In particular is not a good screening test.
And prostate unlike most other cancers in that for indolent cancers you can do more harm than good. So not broadly generalisable to all cancers.

No he read from the actual studies in the video, there are like 4 or 5 different ones.

You cannot cherry pick from a conclusion of a study......

There is not one thing on the website that tells people not to get proper treatment for cancer.

"You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study".

Actually, you can.

For a start, that's an article, not a study. http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187734?path=/bmj/346/7893/Observations.full.pdf

Second, even when something IS a study, if you cherry pick parts of it you can easily mislead people.

Now, I don't really have a problem with the facts outlined in this video, other than that I know Greger is attempting to use them to convince people NOT to get proper treatment of cancer.

9037 studies demonstrate that red meat causes cancer. I'm well aware that you can manipulate statistics, which is why there is an organisation called the World Cancer Research Fund. They've sifted through 500,000 studies and currently have identified 9037 legitimate studies. wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/animal-foods

You might not like vegans or Dr. Greger, but you cannot argue against over 9000 peer reviewed, and medical journal published studies, that are unrelated, done by non-vegans, and then filtered through by non-vegan scientists to assess the quality of the results.

EDIT: They say that more than 300g of red meat a week puts you in serious danger of developing cancer - that quite clearly means it is at least as dangerous as smoking.

Your video, Cancer Screening Myths, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.