RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 4:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch Yep. I believe it. By the way, did I ever mention I am actually a man with a 10 inch cock and balls the size of grapefruits? You should call a doctor![:D]

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AQuietSimpleMan quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch Yep. I believe it. By the way, did I ever mention I am actually a man with a 10 inch cock and balls the size of grapefruits? NOW I understand why Michael had such a thing for you ... I was always curious. QSM GASP! You are BAD!! [sm=hewah.gif] ( I was able to tuck my big cock away, and my boobs are actually my balls, hoisted up. Yes, they are THAT big...) See? [sm=flash.gif]

Jeffff -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:11:54 PM)
Great... now I have this visual of your tits covered in a mass of wiry hair. I hope you wax them.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:12:59 PM)
Of course sweetie.. I wax everything...

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:15:56 PM)
BTW, I read the article. I didn't find alot of merit to the argument. Here are my thoughts about smoking from a post I made a few years ago here.. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1033004

Jeffff -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch Of course sweetie.. I wax everything... Yeah and I am supposed to just take your word for it. I promise I won't share any pictures with DG. Ok, that was a lie......but I promise to tell him not to share with anyone else!

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:21:07 PM)
Umm. Nope.

Jeffff -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:22:22 PM)
Yeah... kinda figured....... But you know what they say..... no guts, no gash! [:D]

DesFIP -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:28:31 PM)
This is not a reputable medical journal. The Lancet is, as is the New England Journal of medicine. Show us an article in one of those and we'll give it the attention it deserves. As it isn't a reputable medical journal we have given it the attention it deserves, none.

BossyShoeBitch -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:29:07 PM)
LMAO!

LadyEllen -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:37:20 PM)
This is silly. Of course smoking causes lung cancer, just as it causes other health problems. If what the guy is saying is that smoking isnt the sole cause then that would be fair - all sorts of things trigger cancer when you look into it. If he is saying that smoking isnt the main cause then that might be worth investigating, if we can find a population which is not exposed to tobacco smoke but is exposed to some other carcinogen we might want to look at. If he is saying that it isnt dead certain, 'scuse the pun, that smoking will cause lung cancer then that would be fair - it can kill you all sort of ways after all. But none of this is news, so why the fuss? E

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:39:22 PM)
quote: Considering the article is from the Jounal of Theoretics He probably titled it that way so that someone would actually read it. Bingo! We have a winner!

Jeffff -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:39:22 PM)
The above post had nothing to do with BSB's breasts. Could we TRY and stay on topic here?

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:42:23 PM)
quote: But to others that did not read the article, how is it you can comment when you did not know what was presented ? I have read racist tirades claiming that dark skinned people were less intelligent than white and that asian people were smarter than anyone.... this was on an .edu site where some professor of philosophy decided to make a racist case that wasn't provable... the reason I read it? I used it as a foil for an undergraduate paper about racism... My point, just because it "looks" official and "appears"to have merit doesn't mean jack shit

BitaTruble -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 5:54:14 PM)
quote: When the reality is, if we did not have this information that smoking is dangerous, governments worldwide could be reaping millions in tax from such an easy target as the addicted, yet they are not, why ? The US took in 1.5 billion dollars in 2007 from cigarette taxes. One country - one year.. so to answer the question as to why the world isn't reaping millions of cigarette tax dollars is that.. they are. Tax Revenue from Cigs ETA: I read the entire article as well as the man's website but as I don't believe ad hominen's are productive, I'll refrain from further comment and just say that I don't find the man very credible.

TribeTziyon -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch BTW, I read the article. I didn't find alot of merit to the argument. Here are my thoughts about smoking from a post I made a few years ago here.. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1033004 My brother smoked all the way util the end of his 18 month bout with the lung cancer and mets to the brain. It was not a pretty thing to see my older brother, the one I idolized from childhood, become weak, wizened and addled mentally from the illness. I won't say anything to be tarnish his memory but I wish he could have stayed quit. \He might still be around. The only good thing that came out of it was that I threw mine down for good a month after he died. I'll have 8 months on the 29th and 10 months without him. You can wrap it up anyway you want with any numbers, but when it is your loved one they don't matter. Any risk is one too many.

LadyEllen -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff The above post had nothing to do with BSB's breasts. Could we TRY and stay on topic here? Yeah, right You only got interested when she said she had a 10' cock and balls the size of grapefruits E

Termyn8or -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:05:34 PM)
"if we can find a population which is not exposed to tobacco smoke but is exposed to some other carcinogen we might want to look at. " Deisel mechanics. I did read the article, and down at the bottom are the references. The WHO is mentioned but it doesn't carry that much weight with me just as any other "established" sources like the AMA, or the TV news for that matter. And even if someone is the absolute best of the best in their field, they are still not infallible. Even the wrong data can be misinterpreted, or tainted by other, yet unknown factors. Someone out there uses a simlilar argument to claim that it's OK to put the mercury containing themerosal in vaccines. So thy does one argument carry more validity than the other ? ; The answer is that it does not. For example would you accept even raw data from researchers who used lab rats to prove the cancer issue either way without knowing all the factors ? Lab rats are raised in a controlled environment, in filtered air and using the most nutritious food in the world. They are even carefully screened genetically to look for any possible hereitary factors. Even under these conditions there is still some doubt. And at times the data are disproven by those with lesser supposed qualifications. It doesn't happen all that much, and sometimes the experts do do further study and actually disprove themselves. And then there is always that choice of which data to publish. Who cheated on their exams ? Also just which questions did they get wrong even if they didn't cheat ? No one source is gospel, even the gospel. T

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:10:44 PM)
FR What I've noticed more recently is individuals trying to go against a tide of established scientific research which all points to a statistical link. My view is they do it because it's an easy way to get notoriety i.e. you are saying something controversial or bucking the trend or disproving a commonly held belief. People do it to different extents but I don't really know what comes from it other than more doubts. Not very responsible it's a bit like the MMR study; to discount all previous studies would be wrong but people seem to be more willing to do this these days to establish their work as important.

aphotic -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:27:05 PM)
I'm sorry, but not bound by the politics of this board to uphold some sense of civility-- What kind of absolute idiot would infer or believe any sort of report that says that smoking may not cause lung cancer? Right? You're just as healthy introducing carcinogens into your lung tissue as not doing so--good grief! we've had a medical and scientific breakthrough. I'm sure all those people who smoked and got lung cancer at a higher frequency than anyone else were working around asbestos, living in high emission areas, mining coal (don't forget the good ole' black lung) or simply drinking the wrong flavor of cancerous juice while accidentally choking it down their windpipes. How absurd to suggest a conspiracy. How irrelevant to defy common sense. How foolish. Your article only argues the death rate to lung cancer. Hm, you can live a good while with steroids and oxygen with poorly functioning lungs while suffering from Stage 1 or 2 lung cancer. You know what, it is a conspiracy. Those other miscreants--good god, they died from Stage IV lung cancer which means it spread to other vital organs, and thus--according to this source--died from liver malfunction or other sources. Or hell, maybe lung cancer didn't kill them (which is all this article claims, not that smoking doesn't cause it)... maybe they suffered terminal brain damage from the lack of oxygen due to chronic bronchitis or emphysema! Both fun and excellent non-cancerous ways to die before you get cancer. Oh, a saving grace--cigar smokers don't get lung cancer... because maybe... they mostly don't inhale. Let's have the overhead show the incidence of throat and mouth cancer in cigar smokers vs. non-smokers! What else did this Einstein of an article say? No evidence of exposure to secondhand smoke during childhood shows a correlation with developing lung cancer. Wait there Jesus, I have another miracle you can believe. Hm, how many people are really subjecting themselves to a clinical survery on this? Maybe tell that to Ruth, who never smoked a day in her life but still died from working in a diner filled with secondhand smoke? Mr. Crackpot MD here--writing this article--must be a real genius. You don't die from cancer! Usually you don't! I had lymphoma, and you know what the risks of cancer are? It will eventually shut down your other organs, and thus, you will die from that. How doctors and idiots choose to read statistics based on "cause of death" would only make us all fools to give ear to.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875