Smoking (and similar exposures) should not be blamed for cancer; only massive exposures such as Hiroshima cause cancer, and there is 'no such thing as early death' from smoking.
Original statement
اصل التدخين هو اللي جاب السرطان اصل المايكروويف هو اللي جاب السرطان اصل السرطان جه من الدخان اصل السرطان جه من اكل المواد الحافظه اصل السرطان ايه يا عم مالك في ايه
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Smoking (and similar exposures) should not be blamed for cancer; only massive exposures such as Hiroshima cause cancer, and there is 'no such thing as early death' from smoking.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- السرطان ١ (Open source)
- Published
- 26 January 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:24:03 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; spelling errors of the machine transcript are kept verbatim; wording may deviate from the spoken words.
- Population concerned
General
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
السجائر بتسبب اه عق وبتسبب موت مبكر حتى ده كفر ما فيش حاجه اسمها موت مبكر
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! من الجرثومة الي السكر؟!! (Open source)
- Published
- 7 December 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:27:42 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Scientific assessment
False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.
Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Rejecting the view that smoking causes cancer; dismissing early death from smoking.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Microwave ovens are not an established cause of cancer (no evidence reviewed suggesting they are); the claim about massive radiation doses causing cancer is correct.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Continuing smokers died about 10 years earlier than non-smokers; stopping at 30 avoided almost all excess risk (I-CAN-01). Smoking accounts for 19.3% of cancer cases and 28.5% of cancer deaths in the US (I-CAN-02) and is the leading risk factor for cancer deaths globally (I-CAN-03). Smoking also multiplies radiotherapy harms (I-CHM-06).
4. What remains unclear?
Nothing material; smoking is one of the best-established causes of cancer. Egypt-specific attributable fractions were not reviewed.
5. Which studies support it?
None. The side remark that massive radiation exposure causes cancer is correct but does not support dismissing smoking.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-CAN-01, I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03, I-CHM-06, I-CHM-12.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Tobacco control is central in EU cancer prevention.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Tobacco use is common in Egypt (not quantified here); the evidence applies.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Not smoking and quitting smoking are among the most effective ways to prevent cancer.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Smoking is one of the best-established human carcinogens with 50-year cohort data and population-level attributable fractions.
- Source quality
Machine transcripts; ironic tone possible but meaning clear in context.
- Regional transferability
High.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.
Research question: Does smoking cause cancer and premature death, and do only massive exposures (as in Hiroshima) cause cancer?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- General population, incl. Egypt
- Intervention or exposure
- Tobacco smoking; ionising radiation at various doses
- Comparison
- Never smoking; low/no dose
- Geographic scope
- universal biology; Egyptian data checked
- Outcomes
- Cancer incidence
- All-cause mortality
- Dose-response
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
No high-quality evidence supporting the claim was found.
What speaks against the claim?
Smokers die about ten years earlier; quitting gives years back
Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE Cohort studyabstract checked50-year cohort of British doctors.
- Actual result
- Continuing smokers died about 10 years earlier; quitting at 30 avoided almost all excess risk (as recorded)
- Methodological quality
- high (cohort)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Male doctors only.
Smoking and bladder cancer in Alexandria
Bedwani R et al.. Int J Cancer 1997 · PMID 9334811 · DOI 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970926)73:1<64::aid-ijc11>3.0.co;2-5 Case-control studyabstract checkednewly addedEgyptian case-control study.
- Actual result
- Current smokers OR 6.6 (3.1-13.9) for bladder cancer; ~75% of male cases attributable
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct, Egypt-specific
- Limitations
- Small, older.
Cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors
Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedA-bomb survivors cohort.
- Actual result
- Significant radiation dose response down to 0-100 mGy
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct for 'only massive exposures'
- Limitations
- Low-dose shape uncertain.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Smoking is a proven major cause of cancer and premature death, including in Egypt; radiation causes cancer also below 'massive' doses.
Why some studies weigh more
Long-term cohorts with dose-response and cessation benefit; honest supporting search found no study suggesting smoking does not cause cancer.
Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Bradford Hill criteria met: strength, dose-response, temporality, reversibility after quitting, consistency across populations.
Remaining uncertainty
None material.
Justified conclusion
This claim is false.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal human biology; applies in Egypt, Germany and elsewhere.
- Eating habits
- Waterpipe (shisha) use is common in Egypt; in the Alexandria study cigarette smoking, not waterpipe, drove bladder cancer risk (I-CAN-124).
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not relevant.
- National production conditions
- Not relevant.
- Legal rules
- Not relevant.
- Actual monitoring data
- Egyptian case-control data available (I-CAN-124).
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- CI log-symmetry of ORs – Symmetric (ratios 1.03, 0.99); wide intervals due to small sample. recalculated
- Share of radiation-associated cancers; low-dose evidence – 4.4%; significant dose response at 0-100 mGy. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Smoking and cancer/premature death
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for upgrading
- large effect
- dose-response
- consistency
- Result
- high
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- WHO: Cancer - fact sheet (2026) · Original publication
About 38% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diet, inactivity, air pollution); about 10% are attributable to infections; many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:"Solid Cancer Incidence among the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors" | both directions | 4 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (smoking OR tobacco OR shisha OR waterpipe) AND (Egypt OR Egyptian) AND (cancer) AND (risk OR "case-control" OR attributable) | contradicting evidence | 10259 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (smoking) AND (cancer) AND ("no association" OR "not associated" OR "does not cause") AND (lung) AND (meta-analysis) | supporting evidence | 51064 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:(Egypt OR Egyptian) AND TITLE:(smoking OR tobacco OR cigarette OR shisha OR waterpipe) AND (cancer OR carcinoma) | contradicting evidence | 22 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (Tayebat OR Tayibat OR Elawady OR "El-Awady diet" OR "Al-Awady") | both directions | 377 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (smoking[ti]) AND (cancer[ti]) AND ("no association"[tiab] OR "not associated"[tiab]) AND (cohort[tiab]) AND lung[tiab] | supporting evidence | 27 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (smoking[ti] OR tobacco[ti]) AND (cancer[ti]) AND (Egypt[tiab] OR Egyptian[tiab]) | contradicting evidence | 10 |
How deeply was this checked?
8 linked studies: 1 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 7 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
In plain language
In a video Dr. Diaa mocked the idea that smoking causes cancer, and elsewhere said there is no 'early death' from smoking. This is wrong. A 50-year study of British doctors showed smokers died about ten years earlier, and quitting gave most of these years back. Smoking causes about one in five cancers and more than a quarter of cancer deaths in the USA.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (8)
-
Smokers die about ten years earlier; quitting gives years back
Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AECohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking tripled death rates; stopping at 30 avoided almost all the excess risk.
Smoking causes cancer and early death
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure smoking hazards over 50 years.
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
34,439 doctors.
- What was actually found?
Smokers die ~10 years earlier.
- How large was the observed effect?
3-fold mortality.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Stopping smoking at any age helps.
- What are the study's limitations?
Men only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts smoking dismissal.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects of other tobacco products.
-
Four in ten cancers in the USA are linked to avoidable risk factors, led by smoking
Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking accounted for 19% of cancers and 29% of cancer deaths; excess weight and alcohol followed.
Smoking leading cause
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate preventable cancers.
- How was the study done?
PAF analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US 2019.
- What was actually found?
40% of cases attributable.
- How large was the observed effect?
Smoking 19.3%/28.5%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not smoking, healthy weight, less alcohol and a diet with fibre, fruit and vegetables lower risk.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet matters but is not the main cause.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual cause.
-
Smoking, alcohol and excess weight lead global avoidable cancer deaths
GBD 2019 Cancer Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2022 · PMID 35988567 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01438-6Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment44% of cancer deaths worldwide in 2019 were attributable to known risk factors, smoking first; diet accounted for about 5-6% of cancer burden.
Smoking leading
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Global attributable cancer burden.
- How was the study done?
GBD modelling.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
204 countries.
- What was actually found?
4.45 million cancer deaths (44.4%) attributable to modelled risks in 2019; tobacco 33.9% of male and 10.7% of female cancer DALYs; dietary risks 5.9% and 5.1%.
- How large was the observed effect?
4.45 million deaths.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid tobacco and alcohol, keep healthy weight.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based estimates; sparse data in many countries; infections and UV not included.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet is one factor among several.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the remaining 56% of cancer deaths have no external cause (infections and UV were not modelled); individual risk for a given person.
-
With modern techniques, radiotherapy's heart and lung risks are small for non-smokers
Taylor C et al.. J Clin Oncol 2017 · PMID 28319436 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.0722Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout 0.3% risk of radiation-related heart death or lung cancer in non-smokers, higher in smokers.
Smoking multiplies RT harms
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate absolute RT risks.
- How was the study done?
Dose review + IPD meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
40,781 women.
- What was actually found?
Small absolute risks; smoking key.
- How large was the observed effect?
Cardiac mortality RR 1.30.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Stop smoking before/after radiotherapy.
- What are the study's limitations?
Smoking modelled.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Puts Darby in perspective.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual dose-specific risk.
-
Cancer death rates in the USA keep falling
Siegel RL et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38230766 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21820Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checkedMore than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991 thanks to less smoking, earlier detection and better treatment.
Smoking reduction credited
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Report cancer statistics.
- How was the study done?
Registry data.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US population.
- What was actually found?
Declining mortality.
- How large was the observed effect?
>4 million deaths averted.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Prevention and treatment both work.
- What are the study's limitations?
Descriptive.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Benefit context.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Share due to treatment alone.
-
Cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors
Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyRadiation raised solid cancer risk even at doses of 0-100 mGy; most cancers in survivors were due to other causes.
Radiation risk not restricted to massive doses; smoking an independent factor
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Radiation dose and cancer.
- How was the study done?
Cohort, 1958-2009.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
105,444 people.
- What was actually found?
Dose-related increase, also at low doses.
- How large was the observed effect?
ERR 0.64/Gy (women).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not only massive exposures matter.
- What are the study's limitations?
Low-dose shape uncertain.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'only Hiroshima-like exposures'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Smoking effects (adjusted, not studied).
-
Smoking and bladder cancer in Alexandria
Bedwani R et al.. Int J Cancer 1997 · PMID 9334811 · DOI 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970926)73:1<64::aid-ijc11>3.0.co;2-5Case-control studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedEgyptian men who smoked had 4-7 times the odds of bladder cancer; risk fell after quitting.
Egyptian data: smoking explains ~75% of male bladder cancer
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Smoking and bladder cancer in Egypt.
- How was the study done?
Case-control.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
151 cases, 157 controls.
- What was actually found?
Strong dose-related risk.
- How large was the observed effect?
OR 6.6 current smokers.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Smoking causes cancer in Egypt too.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, older.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Regional.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Current prevalence.
-
WHO: many cancers are preventable and curable
World Health Organization. who.int 2026Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checkedAbout 38% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors, and many can be cured with early, effective treatment.
Tobacco a key risk factor
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Summarise cancer facts.
- How was the study done?
Agency fact sheet.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Global.
- What was actually found?
Preventable external causes; curable with treatment.
- How large was the observed effect?
38% preventable.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid tobacco and alcohol; get treated early.
- What are the study's limitations?
Summary.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'not caused by external agents'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Detailed estimates.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Tobacco control is central in EU cancer prevention.
Egypt
Tobacco use is common in Egypt (not quantified here); the evidence applies.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
False Smoking is a major proven cause of cancer and early death.
This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.
References
- Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors.. Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE
- Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States, 2019.. Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858
- The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.. GBD 2019 Cancer Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2022 · PMID 35988567 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01438-6
- Estimating the Risks of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Evidence From Modern Radiation Doses to the Lungs and Heart and From Previous Randomized Trials.. Taylor C et al.. J Clin Oncol 2017 · PMID 28319436 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.0722
- Cancer statistics, 2024.. Siegel RL et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38230766 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21820
- Solid Cancer Incidence among the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009.. Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1
- Epidemiology of bladder cancer in Alexandria, Egypt: tobacco smoking.. Bedwani R et al.. Int J Cancer 1997 · PMID 9334811 · DOI 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970926)73:1<64::aid-ijc11>3.0.co;2-5
- Cancer - WHO fact sheet. World Health Organization. who.int 2026