Cigarettes are beneficial or at least not harmful: asked whether cigarettes are beneficial he answered 'Yes, beneficial'; elsewhere he said smoking has nothing to do with atherosclerosis and is 'not harmful at all' organically.
Original statement
انها لا تهضم يعني انت فاهم هل هل السجاير مفيده؟ اه مفيده دغري كده على طول يعني انت فاهم اللحمه ما فيهاش مشكله على
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Cigarettes are beneficial or at least not harmful: asked whether cigarettes are beneficial he answered 'Yes, beneficial'; elsewhere he said smoking has nothing to do with atherosclerosis and is 'not harmful at all' organically.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الكورتيزون حياتك (Open source)
- Published
- 17 October 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:16:40 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Transcript is YouTube CC or machine-generated (no timestamps); wording may contain speech-recognition errors. Speaker attribution within live streams/podcasts is not marked in the transcript; the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context. Recurrence = number of archive transcripts matching the keyword pattern ['السجاير|سجاير|التدخين|سيجاره', 'مفيد|مش مضر|ما بتضرش|مضره'] (approximate; includes re-uploads/clips; 28 distinct text passages).
- Claimed mechanism
Not stated.
- Claimed health effect
Not specified.
- Population concerned
Smokers.
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found; he does not limit this statement to a country or to a production system
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!لايف مش مهم خالص (Open source)
- Published
- 11 February 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Further video in which the same statement recurs; no excerpt recorded. Archive transcript without timestamps.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!لايف الخميس ❤️❤️❤️ (Open source)
- Published
- 30 January 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Further video in which the same statement recurs; no excerpt recorded. Archive transcript without timestamps.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- بدأت قناة ＂Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي＂ بثًا مباشرًا تصليح مفاهيم (Open source)
- Published
- 31 March 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Further video in which the same statement recurs; no excerpt recorded. Archive transcript without timestamps.
الدخان يا حبيبتي مالوش علاقه خالص بتصلب الشرايين خلاص صباح خير اه يعني السجاير مالهاش علاقه خالص بالموضوع ولو من الناحيه الشرعيه هي مش حرام ولو من الناحيه العضويه انا بقول لك مش مضره
Smoking has nothing at all to do with atherosclerosis; cigarettes have nothing to do with it; religiously they are not forbidden, and organically I tell you they are not harmful.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الالتهاب ايه هوه ؟ (Open source)
- Published
- 26 September 2025
- Timestamp
- 1:20:43 (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; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
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?
Cigarettes are beneficial (answer to a viewer) or not harmful, and smoking has nothing to do with atherosclerosis.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Nothing in this health statement is supported. The only related finding is that smoking is inversely associated with a few conditions such as ulcerative colitis and Parkinson's disease; these associations are modest, partly confounded and do not outweigh the harms (I-SRC-126).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Smoking one cigarette per day was associated with a relative risk of coronary heart disease of 1.48 in men and 1.57 in women (up to 1.74 and 2.19 with full adjustment), about half the excess risk of 20 per day; the authors conclude that no safe level of smoking exists for cardiovascular disease (I-INTB-21). In 50 years of follow-up of British doctors, continuing smokers died about 10 years earlier; stopping at 30 avoided almost all of the excess risk (I-CAN-01). Smoking accounts for 28.5% of US cancer deaths (I-CAN-02). In a US national cohort of over 200,000 adults, current smokers had about three times the death rate of never-smokers and lost more than 10 years of life; quitting before 40 avoided about 90% of the excess risk (I-SRC-113).
4. What remains unclear?
Whether the brief 'yes, beneficial' was meant ironically cannot be determined from the transcript; the other passage is unambiguous.
5. Which studies support it?
None for benefit; I-SRC-126 describes a few inverse disease associations that do not outweigh harms.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-INTB-21, I-CAN-01, I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03, I-SRC-113.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in Europe (general knowledge).
8. What is known about Egypt?
Same evidence applies to Egypt; shisha and cigarettes both deliver tobacco smoke (general knowledge).
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Stopping smoking at any age reduces risk; support to quit is available from physicians and pharmacists.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Prospective evidence from 141 cohorts shows that even one cigarette per day markedly increases coronary heart disease and stroke risk (I-INTB-21); continuing smokers died about 10 years earlier than non-smokers (I-CAN-01); smoking is the leading risk factor for cancer deaths (I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03).
- Source quality
Machine transcript of a live stream; wording may contain recognition errors; meaning checked in context. The 'yes, beneficial' answer came in a rapid question-and-answer sequence; the other passage (DMH-FBqMz0E) states clearly that cigarettes are not harmful. Related cancer statement: C-CAN-02.
- Regional transferability
Universal; smoking prevalence among Egyptian men is high (general knowledge; not sourced here).
- Individual exceptions
None; no safe level of smoking was identified for cardiovascular disease (I-INTB-21).
- 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: Is cigarette smoking beneficial or harmless, in particular with respect to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- Adults
- Intervention or exposure
- Cigarette smoking (any amount)
- Comparison
- Never smoking / quitting
- Geographic scope
- universal biology; waterpipe also relevant in Egypt
- Outcomes
- All-cause mortality
- Coronary heart disease and stroke
- Cancer
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Diseases that seem less common in smokers
Yılmaz M et al.. Eur Addict Res 2025 · PMID 41129423 · DOI 10.1159/000549064 Narrative reviewabstract checkednewly addedNarrative review of diseases with inverse associations with smoking.
- Actual result
- Inverse associations for a few conditions (e.g. ulcerative colitis, Parkinson's disease), often modest and confounded; do not outweigh harms.
- Methodological quality
- low (narrative)
- Relevance
- indirect; the only factual kernel
- Limitations
- Not systematic.
What speaks against the claim?
Even one cigarette a day harms the heart
Hackshaw A et al.. BMJ 2018 · PMID 29367388 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.j5855 Meta-analysisfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentMeta-analysis of 141 cohorts on low cigarette consumption.
- Actual result
- One cigarette/day: CHD RR 1.48 (men), 1.57 (women); about half the excess risk of 20/day; no safe level.
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct for atherosclerosis
- Limitations
- Observational.
Smoking costs more than ten years of life
Jha P et al.. N Engl J Med 2013 · PMID 23343063 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMsa1211128 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedUS national cohort (NHIS).
- Actual result
- All-cause mortality HR 3.0 (women), 2.8 (men); >10 years of life lost; quitting before 40 avoids ~90% of excess risk.
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Self-report.
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 British doctors study.
- Actual result
- Continuing smokers died about 10 years earlier.
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Male doctors only.
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 harmful at any level; it causes atherosclerotic disease, cancer and early death.
Why some studies weigh more
Consistent, very large prospective cohorts with dose-response and large effects; causal role established for decades.
Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Large effects, dose-response, consistency, temporality, cessation benefit.
Remaining uncertainty
Whether 'yes, beneficial' was meant ironically cannot be judged from the transcript; the other statement is unambiguous.
Justified conclusion
Smoking is not beneficial and not harmless; a few inverse disease associations do not change this.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- Waterpipe (shisha) also delivers tobacco smoke.
- Origin of the food
- Not applicable.
- Contaminants
- Not applicable.
- National production conditions
- Not applicable.
- Legal rules
- Tobacco control laws in Egypt and Europe.
- Actual monitoring data
- WHO: >7 million tobacco deaths per year.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- HR CI symmetry (99% CIs) and absolute survival differences – Midpoints 2.98 (women) and 2.73 (men) vs 3.0/2.8 (rounding); survival 70% vs 38% and 61% vs 26% recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Cardiovascular disease and mortality from smoking
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for upgrading
- large effect
- dose-response
- 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: Tobacco fact sheet (2026) · Original publication
Tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year; there is no safe level of exposure; tobacco use is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases; waterpipe tobacco listed among tobacco products.
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 | (smoking OR cigarette) AND ("inverse association" OR "lower risk" OR protective) AND (Parkinson OR "ulcerative colitis") AND (meta-analysis) | supporting evidence | 5612 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States | contradicting evidence | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (smoking OR tobacco OR waterpipe OR shisha) AND (Egypt OR Egyptian) AND (prevalence OR mortality OR "coronary") AND PUB_YEAR:[2018 TO 2026] | contradicting evidence | 15607 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (smoking[Title] OR nicotine[Title]) AND (Parkinson disease[Title]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR "systematic review"[pt]) | supporting evidence | 14 | |
| WHO website | 26 October 2026 | WHO tobacco fact sheet | guidelines | 1 |
How deeply was this checked?
6 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 4 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
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: False (high)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: False (high)
Additional cohort and WHO evidence; verdict unchanged; fair acknowledgement of inverse associations added.
New sources: I-SRC-113 I-SRC-126
In plain language
Dr. Elawady said cigarettes are beneficial or not harmful and have nothing to do with hardened arteries. This is wrong. Very large studies show that even one cigarette a day raises the risk of heart disease and stroke considerably. Long-term smokers die about ten years earlier on average. Quitting at any age helps, and quitting early removes most of the extra risk.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (5)
-
Even one cigarette a day harms the heart
Hackshaw A et al.. BMJ 2018 · PMID 29367388 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.j5855Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyOne cigarette a day carries about half the heart-disease risk of 20 a day.
No safe level of smoking for heart disease and stroke.
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?
Quantify light-smoking risk
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
141 cohort studies in 55 reports (millions of participants)
- What was actually found?
Large excess risk even at 1/day
- How large was the observed effect?
CHD RR 1.48-2.19 at 1/day
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
There is no safe amount of smoking for heart and brain blood vessels.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; one database, English only; no protocol; modelled from summary data
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'cigarettes are beneficial/not harmful'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Smoking costs more than ten years of life
Jha P et al.. N Engl J Med 2013 · PMID 23343063 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMsa1211128Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyIn over 200,000 US adults, smokers died at about three times the rate of never-smokers; quitting before 40 removed about 90% of the excess risk.
Smokers have about threefold mortality and lose over 10 years of life.
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 harms and quitting benefits
- How was the study done?
National cohort
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
202,248 adults
- What was actually found?
Threefold mortality; >10 years life lost
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 3.0 women, 2.8 men
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Smoking is deadly; quitting helps
- What are the study's limitations?
Self-report
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the claim
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Diseases that seem less common in smokers
Yılmaz M et al.. Eur Addict Res 2025 · PMID 41129423 · DOI 10.1159/000549064Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checkedA few conditions such as ulcerative colitis and Parkinson's disease are less common in smokers, but this does not outweigh the harms of smoking.
A few inverse associations exist but do not outweigh harms.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review claimed benefits of smoking
- How was the study done?
Narrative review
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
8 conditions
- What was actually found?
Some inverse associations, often confounded
- How large was the observed effect?
not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No reason to smoke
- What are the study's limitations?
Narrative
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Only a tiny kernel; claim remains false
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causality of inverse associations
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in Europe (general knowledge).
Egypt
Same evidence applies to Egypt; shisha and cigarettes both deliver tobacco smoke (general knowledge).
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
False This claim is false: smoking is harmful at any level and causes heart disease, stroke, 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
- Low cigarette consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: meta-analysis of 141 cohort studies in 55 study reports.. Hackshaw A et al.. BMJ 2018 · PMID 29367388 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.j5855
- 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
- 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States.. Jha P et al.. N Engl J Med 2013 · PMID 23343063 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMsa1211128
- What Is the Real Impact of Smoking on Diseases Alleged to Benefit from It?. Yılmaz M et al.. Eur Addict Res 2025 · PMID 41129423 · DOI 10.1159/000549064