Scientists Proved Smoking Prevents Lung Cancer

lung cancer

I have not lost my mind.  You read the title of this article correctly.  While I do believe smoking does diminish ones breathing capacity, I do not believe it causes cancer in any way, shape or form. You can get terrible lung diseases such as COPD from smoking.   I am not encouraging you to smoke!  I am though, trying to educate those willing to examine EVIDENCE, that the lung cancer issue is a farce!

In fact, because we who study scientific facts know the government has been poisoning us for years with fluoride, aspartame, mercury, aluminum, barium, and strontium, I had to ask and research about smoking which the government has been trying to stop for years. They obviously don’t give a damn about our health based on the previously mentioned allowed and mandated poisons we are supposed to submit to. I mean, if the government allows and encourages us to poison our children, why on earth would there be such a media frenzy, political assassination of smokers and smoking?  It did not compute in my mind and thus I found this article.  I am sure you did not ever read about this in any major accepted news source. So enjoy some truth:

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003 Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933. Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities. Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics. Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection. Not all governments around the world share the same problem.

Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”

The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies. In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills.

By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls: “When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave traveling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow. “The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to super criticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication. How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

SCIENTISTS PROVED RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES CAUSE LUNG CANCER

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions.

The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse. The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while traveling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms.

There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity. The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.

Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

SCIENTISTS PROVED BY ACCIDENT SMOKING PREVENTS LUNG CANCER

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke. ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”

It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record! Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer. Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer.

Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof. Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course.

On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed. The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab. Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers.

Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue. All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Now, I know this is very hard to digest.  It seems to validate my pondering over why the government wants to demonize smoking.  I mean, it can’t be their fault for detonating massive nuclear bombs which polluted our soil and will stay around thousands of years.  And, then you have those crazy psychopathic parasitical elites who think the earth is over populated and we need to have a maximum of 500,000,000 humans inhabiting the world.  Well, just how are you going to get rid of 6.5 billion people and not create a dangerous backlash against yourself?  You do it through soft killing methods like chemtrail spraying, vaccines, poisoning the food supply and unleashing deadly flu onto an unsuspecting population.  The only drawback is those damn smokers won’t get as ill from the stuff they are spraying because of that nasty mucus we have in our lungs.  Doubt me about vaccines causing cancer?

 

You think these sick psychopaths are not out to kill us?

If you are not yet convinced, the let this doctor explain why there is a new hysteria about smoking in his book:  “Wisps of Smoke”

 

Again, this is not to tell you to smoke.  Here is what COPD looks like :

Advertisements

16 comments on “Scientists Proved Smoking Prevents Lung Cancer

  1. Pingback: Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer Per Many Scientific Sources | unifiedserenity

    • It’s sad really. We want to trust people. We want to know what to do, and we expect these “experts” to be honest. Then we find out it’s all about who is paying them, and where the almighty dollar is in research. I am a truth seeker first and foremost. I have no sacred cows. My world is not destroyed learning new things. I think it is because of my deep faith in Yeshua / Jesus. I know ultimately I have nothing to fear, so what is a little truth going to do to me except make me informed?

      • The studies are bogus and they are also promoting a Luciferian agenda. The same thing also holds true for the people that want to legalize all kinds of harmful drugs, including absinthe, alcohol, and marijuana. The Holy Scriptures also forbids emulating evil and wicked empires and religions and drug usage is deeply entrenched within those cultures. The dervish dance in Turkey is one such example of that sort of thing, and peyote in certain North American empires is another such example of that kind of evil. The Holy Scriptures forbid the usage of these things, as they can actually act as a demonic portal, just like any other obvious symbol of the occult, such as a Ouija Board, a copy of the Satanic Bible, or a copy of the Necronomicon. Argue otherwise and you violate the Holy Scriptures. There is a reason why YAHWEH EL ELOHIM did not allow addictive, harmful, and deadly drugs within the nation of Israel. I find it sad that the modern nation of Israel is doing evil with allowing that and the LGBT community to thrive without consequences instead of condemning sin as the Holy Scriptures commands us ALL to do in our lives. “There is a way that seems right to a person, but in the end, it will always lead to death.” The Book of Proverbs called this out for what it is in the end.

      • You are entitled to your opinion. I can happily look at history. People were not dropping dead of lung cancer prior to the 1950’s as they are today. People have smoked for ions. I agree that the added chemicals are not needed, but that’s a personal choice. I seriously doubt you can prove the studies are “bogus”.

  2. The -called “scientists” that made that farce of a so-called “study” are actually working for tobacco companies and they are also liars and servants of Lucifer. They are also working with the Illuminati. I know how these things work. Also, radiation is merely heat and with the thousand chemicals or so within cigarettes, as well as cigars, cigarillos, and even marijuana, a few of those chemicals alone can kill numerous people. Argue with me otherwise and delete my comment and you will also prove that you are in league with Lucifer, just as they are, period, full stop.

  3. Filippo Passeri – actually vaccines are a factor in a lot of cases of autism and that has been proven. I suggest you see the movie, ‘Vaxxed’ – you know, the one that the government and the CDC are so terrified of people seeing – where a whilst blower tells how he and others in the CDC deliberately covered up the research evidence that the MMR is a large factor in autism causing. But really, it is interesting that you mention autism because no one else here was mentioning it. And it is also interesting that you consider anyone stating facts to be ‘anti vaccination’. Actually, most people who speak out are pro vaccine safety – not anti vaccination. It’s a good idea to get the facts straight.

    • No, it has not. I’ve researched everything myself. You wanna know how all that BS started?

      Some idiot wrote an article about it, saying it causes autism or whatever, when in actuality, HE WAS LYING. They removed the article but the damage was done. Stupid people everywhere now proudly allow children to get sick and die from preventable diseases, thinking they know better for their children or that mercury in the vaccine is harmful. In truth, it’s such a small, insignificant part of the vaccine. You get more mercury eating fish than in any vaccine.

      Vaccines have been around for a long time, and we have improved them that any risk of a negative reaction is greatly diminished and is truly rare.

      Do you want to know why people are arguing that ‘now there are more kids than ever with autism so it’s because of vaccines’? It’s because autism is a SPECTRUM DISORDER. Recently, the criteria for diagnosing on the autism spectrum has been decreased, as we learn more and more about it, or any disease for that matter. Therefore, people who slipped through the cracks before are now being caught up to get help. The criteria has changed from needing six items from the group (At least 2 in A, and at least one in B and C) to meet the criteria for being diagnosed on the spectrum.

      Now, past behaviors are also considered and can be used to meet said criteria. Also, instead of needing to meet 6 requirements, you only need 5 in the DSM-V. They have also increased to spectrum to include Asperger’s syndrome, pervasive development disorder, autistic disorder and childhood disintegrative disorder.

      We are not sure if there are more cases or if doctors are getting better at recognizing and correctly diagnosing the signs, but including those other disorders also increases the number of children you can diagnose as autistic. There are also queries into whether or not this is the new ADHD of the 90’s to early 2000’s, i.e. a case of over or misdiagnosing. Mental health is a complicated matter, but there have been many studies done that have proven there is no causation or even correlation between autism and vaccines.

      • You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong. I doubt you have seriously investigated the Italian scientists who have studied this issue and are not hamstrung by the AMA, FDC, and big pharma.

        I am old enough to remember seeing autism first start to really show up. We know mercury and aluminum cause nerve and brain damage. The government has ruined scientist who began to talk about this and that shut up those who want to work.

        Watch VAXXED and then talk to me. http://vaxxedthemovie.com/

        Here is a document about Italian Courts saying MMR causes autism: http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/recent-italian-court-decisions-on-vaccines-and-autism.html

        “Like the U.S., Italy has a national vaccine injury compensation program to give some financial support to those people who are injured by compulsory and recommended vaccinations. The Italian infant plaintiff received three doses of GlaxoSmithKline’s Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent vaccine administered in the first year of life. These doses occurred from March to October 2006. The vaccine is to protect children from polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, pertussis and Haemophilus influenza type B. In addition to these antigens, however, the vaccine then contained thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative, aluminum, an adjuvant, as well as other toxic ingredients. The child regressed into autism shortly after receiving the three doses. When the parents presented their claim for compensation first to the Ministry of Health, as they were required to do, the Ministry rejected it. Therefore, the family sued the Ministry in a court of general jurisdiction, an option which does not exist in the same form in the U.S.

        Based on expert medical testimony, the court concluded that the child more likely than not suffered autism and brain damage because of the neurotoxic mercury, aluminum and his particular susceptibility from a genetic mutation. The Court also noted that Infanrix Hexa contained thimerosal, now banned in Italy because of its neurotoxicity, “in concentrations greatly exceeding the maximum recommended levels for infants weighing only a few kilograms.”

        Presiding Judge Nicola Di Leo considered another piece of damning evidence: a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report (https://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf). This industry document provided ample evidence of adverse events from the vaccine, including five known cases of autism resulting from the vaccine’s administration during its clinical trials (see table at page 626, excerpt below).

  4. Would love to believe all this but how about some facts, preferable supported. What Scientist, Publication and in what medical journal was it published. Back up your points with collaborated data. Russia comes in as 5th highest number of smokers.
    http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/lung-cancer-statistics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita
    I guess you will just say that the above links are falsified data, but at least it’s data.
    As for vaccines, of course there will be side effects there is to everything, one of those side effects is autism. In fact according to my local GP. There is a 1 in 500000 chance of sever side effects from MMR but there again 1 in 200000 measles patients will have sever brain damage/ death

    • I will take the congressional testimony before the FDA was so corrupt. Your numbers regarding the vaccine injury where 90% are never reported and definitely not branded as vaccine injury. I’ve studied the vaccine issue since 1992. I have more time in books and articles than 99% of doctors will ever have. Health care professionals don’t like to rock the boat, don’t want to stand out as non-conformist for professional reasons. Hell, I had a co-worker nurse tell me that no one has ever died from a vaccine, and she’s a nurse of 15+ years! Doctors bully their patients and demean their intelligence when they say they don’t want a vaccine. Informed consent is a hallmark of the medical field and yet they verbally tar and feather you if you say “no thank you”.

  5. Pingback: It’s Official: Smoking Does NOT Cause Lung Cancer | unifiedserenity

  6. Pingback: Kỹ năng cơ bản đánh giá độ xác thực của một bài báo về sức khoẻ | Bản Tin Sống Khỏe

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s