The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so if right now I was to tell you Paul I've been looking at everybody age 95 and above that survived in the in Haynes data and they're all two-pack-a-day smokers that would make no sense to you at all right no sense I would have what as a possible maybe smoking is good for you well you would start to have to question everything you've come to understand about smoking
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
you do notice that that a lot of centenarians and even super centenarians smoke every day of their life basically and you know John comment and Mortensen a male he smoked cigars every single day and he had one or two cigars Walter Brennan also in America and smoked one cigar everyday until he was about a hundred date and you know it's it's entirely possible that okay they have a yet unknown genetic mutation that allows them to do things that would otherwise be unhealthy and not bother them but it's also possible that they're simply having this small amount of carbon monoxide that cigarettes and cigars and cetera produced