Smoking kills

>>55 (OP)
everything can kill you

Agree, stop smoking frens

>>66
come up and get me

>>55 (OP)
Lung cancer death statistics doesn't necessarily mean it's the cigarette that cause the cancer. Nor does it prove that it is the cancer that kills.
The only thing it demonstrate is that a lot of people are diagnosed by allopathic medecine as having lung cancer, and die a lot after their treatment.

I love my American Spirits too much to do that

>>55 (OP)
i hate smoker so muchj bro

>>167
Go fight it

>>55 (OP)
What happened in 1950 which made people instantly start getting lung cancer?

It feels a little misleading.

If we start at 1950 we see:
>ww2 ends
>amount of smokers basically stable
>lung cancer goes from 0 to 55
>bans on in flight smoking
>lung cancer plummets

>>177
Lung cancer, is basically idiots (doctors) diagnosing lungs clogged by cigarette as lung cancer.
A disease named by allopathy is not necessarily a disease. It's allopathic scammers diagnosing something, that can be real, or not, as a disease they give a name of their chosing.

Funny how the red line follows the purple one with a 25 year lag, almost like it does something

>>181
It's cherry picked though.

>data sources (2017)
>shows until 2010
>pre 1950 doesn't exist

Also '''''''age standardised'''''''' is potential jewishness. Are you sure this isn't just a graph of how many chinks die per year?