If jspreen can provide some evidence

Evidence? I don’t know anymore what evidence is and I think that evidence only becomes evidence when you leave out everything that contradicts a particular point if view. Anyway, maybe the following can help (quote from an interview with Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer):

Dr. Hamer, what role is played by carcinogenic substances, and can healthy nutrition prevent or hinder cancer?
Carcinogenic substances do not exist! Scientists have experimented on so many animals and never found anything that caused cancer. The following idiotic experiment was conducted with rats: for a whole year the rats had concentrated formaldehyde sprayed into their noses, a substance they would normally avoid. These poor animals got mucous membrane cancer in their noses. They did not get it from the formaldehyde but because they couldn’t stand the formaldehyde and ended up with a DHS, a biological conflict, because they didn’t want to smell the substance!
It is also known that organs, whose nerve connections to the brain have been interrupted, cannot produce cancer.
Nevertheless, more than 1,500 allegedly carcinogenic substances have been found through unnecessary animal experiments. This does not mean that these substances are not poisonous for us, but they do not cause cancer, at least not past our brain. Up until now it was thought that cancer was the result of an organ’s wildly growing cells. The assumptions that smoking causes cancer or that Anillin causes cancer are all pure hypothesis and have never been proven and cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, one experiment with 6,000 hamsters confined with cigarette smoke and 6,000 hamsters which stayed clear of smoke for six years, showed the opposite. The smoke-confined animals lived longer. They overlooked the fact that hamsters don’t get frightened by smoke since they live underground and Mother Nature did not see the need for a coded warning sign in their brains.
It’s the opposite with house mice; they will run in total death-panic from any smoke. During the Middle Ages one could be sure there was a fire if a lot of mice were seen coming out of a house. In house mice, pulmonary cancer can be induced by a sudden death-fear panic caused by smoke.
These examples should demonstrate that all the experiments with animals being done today are nothing but torture for them and only because no one considers that an animal has a soul. In summary, there is absolutely no proof that carcinogenic substances work directly on the organs past the brain.

But here’s the fun part: First, the authors state that “the methodology necessarily used…is unable to demonstrate causal relationships and prone to confounding.” Second, they mention the relative quality of prospective studies compared with cross-sectional studies, and mention that, “The only truly prospective study found no association” between smoking and HIV seroconversion.

Just in case anyone is still convinced by the “data,” the authors go on to nitpick even further. They admit that important factors such as “sexual behavior” and smoking are self-reported in all of these studies; current smoking status is not verified biochemically; astoundingly, people who do not currently smoke (or even say they don’t) are not classified as smokers, even though they may have been 3-packers during the time when they were infected.

But not only do you have potential “misclassification bias,” there’s also the “publication bias.” I thought that wasn’t supposed to exist in the rarified air of objective scientific inquiry! Check out these revealing words: “publication bias cannot be ruled out. Investigators who did not find an association between smoking and HIV seroconversion may not have tried or have been able to publish their findings.” I.e., if they didn’t get the “right” result, they couldn’t have been right. Yet one study–that pesky one with the best methodology that found no association–somehow got published.

So let’s get this straight: the data aren’t new; the studies are all flawed, perhaps hopelessly; and the best one shows no association between smoking and HIV. Naturally, the authors and the media jump to the twin conclusions that smoking must predispose to HIV infection and that MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED.

It’s not Big Tobacco that’s messing with people’s heads and lives; it’s Big Science.

Absolutely anything may cut your life short. It’s not the cigarette smoke itself, it’s the way you look at it. If you fear it, it’s bad. Fear is the keyword, not the smoke. Anyway, you think it’s bad for you health? Then stop!

jspreen, with all respect you do not have to question everything just because you question hiv/aids

But it’s the other way around! I stumbled on the whole Aids issue only because I had already come to the conclusion that our modern science of diseases is nonsense. Practically all of it. The HIV=Aids=Death scam can only exists in a society of rotten politics, scienctists, journalists, etc.