RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

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

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

Message

marie2 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:49:57 PM)
GR: Obviously smoking increases the odds of getting lung cancer, and heart disease, and emphysema etc. But of course tons of people smoke all their lives and die of other causes. There are other factors that play into it including hereditary, history of cancer in your family, stress factors, certain type of trades that add to it such as being a welder or whathaveyou. What I'd like to know is this: Of all the people who died..say...in the last year of lung cancer, how many of them were smokers. That's a stat that I would like to get my hands on.

dcnovice -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 6:58:32 PM)
quote: Of all the people who died..say...in the last year of lung cancer, how many of them were smokers. That's a stat that I would like to get my hands on. Good question, Marie. The CDC says, "In the United States, about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% of lung cancer deaths in women are due to smoking." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

Termyn8or -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:06:29 PM)
"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? " That's what most people don't understand. Died from working there. OK now what if she died from working in one that banned smoking ? We can never get that data because there is no way to live an alternate timeline. That also presupposes that all that frying and open flame broiling and who knows what else was not carcinogenic TO HER. Eugene died from lung cancer. He had beaten hidney cancer which noone would believe was caused by smoking. And the only second hand smoke he got was from me when I worked for him. That was two days a week five hours a day maximum and we were infrequently even in the same room. But kidney cancer is known to migrate to the lungs. I mean known to the fact that the family considered suing the HMO that treated him. They decided not to for two reasons. First of all they had enough money, and second, it would not bring him back. But their contention would be that he was supposed to be tested periodically for lung cancer after the bout with kidney cancer, that is supposed to be standard operating procedure. Why ? Because of statistics. This guy, in his late fifties was delivering appliances such as refrigerators upstairs alone, installing them alone with no physical help. One day he was out of breath and they found his lung capacity to be down to 8% in one lung and 12% in the other. Two months later he was dead. Now how many people are y'all claiming are dying from cigaretes a year ? 50,000 ? Well the AMA estimate five times that die from hospital mistakes. Convince me now. T ETA : He never smoked in his life. T

Lucylastic -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:08:35 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? I dont care, Marry Me Edited to add,the site , not credible, the info way too easy to be misinterpreted.As a recent non smoker, I have noticed a huge difference in my health, my respiratory parts anyway.Thats good enough for me. Getting bronchitis and then pneumonia three times in a year was a wake up call

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:08:46 PM)
even if second hand smoking does not cause cancer it gives me sinus and ear infections. Every time I am around it I get ill. Now perhaps that is okay with you, that I should suffer chronic illness so you can calm your addiction... well that is not okay for me

marie2 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Of all the people who died..say...in the last year of lung cancer, how many of them were smokers. That's a stat that I would like to get my hands on. Good question, Marie. The CDC says, "In the United States, about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% of lung cancer deaths in women are due to smoking." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm Thanks dc, I've always wondered about that, but never really knew were to search for that specific piece of data.

playfulotter -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin An independent paper stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer backed up by data from the WHO shows that what data is out there in the public realm is misleading as the facts are facts, yet we are so mislead, why ? ; http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm If the facts are correct and the truth about this subject is being twisted, I just have to ask why, who does it serve to so mislead people, the public and the science community alike ? 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 ? Anyway, the government is reaping millions from the tobacoo industry from those who smoke through taxes and have owned a tax free municipal bond I bought in 2007 supported by the tobacco industry where I get interest twice a year over 5%...which is pretty good right now. This money goes to treat and educate about tobacco. I think this is the type of article that would only be posted by someone who smokes...but I have been wrong before..I scanned over all the other posts and didn't see or missed this question being asked by someone else.......Can I ask Anerin...do you smoke? oops...the one paragraph keeps going in his text..what I typed was: Anyway, the government here in the U.S. "is" reaping millions from the tobacoo industry from those who smoke through taxes and have I owned a tax free municipal bond I bought in 2007 supported by the tobacco industry where I get interest twice a year over 5%...which is pretty good right now. This money goes to treat and educate about tobacco.

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:17:49 PM)
I heard having unprotected sex can give you stds too. Is that also false? Because you could still get an std, but unprotected sex only increases your chances? It's really a silly arguement.

MissSepphora1 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 7:21:39 PM)
I am just hypothesizing here, but I'm guessing the 20% of women who didn't smoke lived with one of the 98% of men who did smoke. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Of all the people who died..say...in the last year of lung cancer, how many of them were smokers. That's a stat that I would like to get my hands on. Good question, Marie. The CDC says, "In the United States, about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% of lung cancer deaths in women are due to smoking." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

DomKen -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 9:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Exactly, so why is it, the language the way it is, it presents a falsety, as it is clear causes and increases the incidence of mean two different things, the former is a definite and the latter is a possible. But to others that did not read the article, how is it you can comment when you did not know what was presented ? Is this the third or fourth time you've posted woo like this? Once more smoking causes cancers period. Will smoking one cigarette cause a person to develop a tumor? no. Although it can happen. But every time a smoker smokes they expose themselves to more carcinogens and eventually many smokers will get cancer from smoking.

Aneirin -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 9:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: playfulotter quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin An independent paper stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer backed up by data from the WHO shows that what data is out there in the public realm is misleading as the facts are facts, yet we are so mislead, why ? ; http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm If the facts are correct and the truth about this subject is being twisted, I just have to ask why, who does it serve to so mislead people, the public and the science community alike ? 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 ? Anyway, the government is reaping millions from the tobacoo industry from those who smoke through taxes and have owned a tax free municipal bond I bought in 2007 supported by the tobacco industry where I get interest twice a year over 5%...which is pretty good right now. This money goes to treat and educate about tobacco. I think this is the type of article that would only be posted by someone who smokes...but I have been wrong before..I scanned over all the other posts and didn't see or missed this question being asked by someone else.......Can I ask Anerin...do you smoke? oops...the one paragraph keeps going in his text..what I typed was: Anyway, the government here in the U.S. "is" reaping millions from the tobacoo industry from those who smoke through taxes and have I owned a tax free municipal bond I bought in 2007 supported by the tobacco industry where I get interest twice a year over 5%...which is pretty good right now. This money goes to treat and educate about tobacco. Yes, unfortunately I do smoke, and that reluctantly because I am addicted to nicotine. I say reluctantly because I want to give up tobacco, I want to rid the dependance on tobacco, get it out of my life, but it seems I have not the strength to quit. Why I do not have the strength, well that is because I use tobacco to stem hunger pangs, I use it so my mind is not constantly on food as I am on a very low income and food costs and with that, costs a lot, so I eat rice and pasta mostly, but when I am skint, I cannot buy enough food to last, but I can buy tobacco to make the food last longer by not eating it. Yes, a not very healthy existance, but it is the existance of many of the poor in this country. But an odd thing, when I didn't smoke, which was up until my 35th birth, year I did little exercise, I could not stick at anything, but since I have been smoking, I have found I have more energy and as a result regularly run, dance, do Iyengar yoga, pilates and sometimes tai chi and isometric training, I am as a result healthier than I believe I ever was before, but eating a complex carbohydrate rich diet when I do eat, it seems I always have enough energy and as where I live is all hills and I have no transport, I power up the hills with ease. But why given I smoke about 12g of tobacco every two days and eat little do I have so much energy, it does not make sense, but I have come across this phenomena before, years ago when I was in the armed forces when confronted with the yearly aero run. The aero run consisted of a one and a half mile run to be completed in twelve minutes or under, well, I always struggled, but always managed to pass, but the people who did the run in less than ten minutes were always the guys that smoked. On one occaision the PTI tried to make an example of smoking and asked of all of us who had just completed the run who smoked and he was dumfounded to find the ones that had done the run in the quickest time were the smokers, the non smokers always took longer, I was one of the snails. Interesting or not, since I started smoking, I do not get colds or other illnesses everyone around me seems to get, it seems I am immune to the yearly virus assault. The year I started smoking was the year my lifelong, well from age four onwards allergy to all pollens in the form of chronic hayfever went for good, did smoking have anything to do with that I wonder, but I started smoking as a means to calm myself from a particularly bad hayfever attack where the drugs failed and I was starting to have difficulty breathing due to my throat swellling, the smoke soothed my throat enough for me to regain control The reason I want to quit, is it costs too much, tobacco is expensive and I would rather not be wasting money on smoking or be forced out in the foulest of weathers often running uphill to the shop before it closes just to make sure I have tobacco in case I need it, as I have found if I don't have supplies I fret, but if I do, then I can relax. I certainly do not believe all that is said about smoking being such a bad bad thing, when we readily inhale diesel fumes on a daily basis via traffic fumes, diesel fumes known to contain four carcinogens, yet no one is saying anything about that are they or is it the petrochemical companies wield more might than tobacco industries.

Lucylastic -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 9:37:51 PM)
Good Luck, Aneirin. its sure aint easy, but I feel better...in more than a couple of ways. Course I dont think Im over the cravings 100%.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/15/2010 10:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin An independant paper stating that smoking does not cause lung cancer backed up by data from the WHO shows that what data is out there in the public realm is misleading as the facts are facts, yet we are so mislead, why ? ; http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm If the facts are correct and the truth about this subject is being twisted, I just have to ask why, who does it serve to so mislead people, the public and the science community alike ? 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 ? Do you understand what an "Editorial" is, Aneirin? Do you understand that an editorial is an opinion piece and not a peer-reviewed publication of a study or meta-analysis which meets rigorous standards? No, I don't think you do. I've seen you argue against the use of factual links before. Now, here's a question. If you believe that the editorial you posted is a factual source, why aren't you discounting it?

tazzygirl -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 1:13:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage I suppose I should mention that my father died of lung cancer 5 years after he quit. That shit is bad for you and it has been very hard to get off those fuckers. I'm much better off without them as I'm sure everyone else is, too. However, corporations have been known to pay "scientists" to do "studies" that come up with results that the company wants the study to say. That's why, when doing research, I look to see who funded the study if they're saying something fishy. There was an article in the NEJM years and years ago about smoking and cancer. The researcher indicated it was his finding that cancer was a pre-existing condition, which explains why some get it and some dont. They lay dormant for the most part, especially while smoking. It was when a smoker quit, according to the author, and the sloughing off of cells and rapid regeneration of the lining of the lungs occured that these pre-cancerous cells go into overdrive and mutate As far as why? There is money in research, there is money in cancer medications, there is money in most anything health related.

DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 1:23:51 AM)
Well, that makes perfect sense!

Louve00 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 5:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage I suppose I should mention that my father died of lung cancer 5 years after he quit. That shit is bad for you and it has been very hard to get off those fuckers. I'm much better off without them as I'm sure everyone else is, too. However, corporations have been known to pay "scientists" to do "studies" that come up with results that the company wants the study to say. That's why, when doing research, I look to see who funded the study if they're saying something fishy. There was an article in the NEJM years and years ago about smoking and cancer. The researcher indicated it was his finding that cancer was a pre-existing condition, which explains why some get it and some dont. They lay dormant for the most part, especially while smoking. It was when a smoker quit, according to the author, and the sloughing off of cells and rapid regeneration of the lining of the lungs occured that these pre-cancerous cells go into overdrive and mutate As far as why? There is money in research, there is money in cancer medications, there is money in most anything health related. Thats interesting, Tazzy. Given the fact that my husband also got lung cancer 5 yrs after he quit smoking. I quit about 5 yrs ago (foolishly not because I wanted to quit for myself because I loved smoking, but because I didn't want him to be subject to second hand smoke, while he was fighting his cancer). His cancer came pretty close to bankrupting us. Its been about 5 years that I've quit now. If I get it, our resources are depleted. I might as well start digging my grave. Hmmm.

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 7:04:50 AM)
quote: Its been about 5 years that I've quit now. If I get it, our resources are depleted. I might as well start digging my grave. Hmmm. I quit 6 years ago and so did my mom (we quit at the same time) and we both are still cancer free Edited to add, your risk of getting cancer drops every year out from your quit

BitaTruble -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 7:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage I suppose I should mention that my father died of lung cancer 5 years after he quit. That shit is bad for you and it has been very hard to get off those fuckers. I'm much better off without them as I'm sure everyone else is, too. However, corporations have been known to pay "scientists" to do "studies" that come up with results that the company wants the study to say. That's why, when doing research, I look to see who funded the study if they're saying something fishy. There was an article in the NEJM years and years ago about smoking and cancer. The researcher indicated it was his finding that cancer was a pre-existing condition, which explains why some get it and some dont. They lay dormant for the most part, especially while smoking. It was when a smoker quit, according to the author, and the sloughing off of cells and rapid regeneration of the lining of the lungs occured that these pre-cancerous cells go into overdrive and mutate As far as why? There is money in research, there is money in cancer medications, there is money in most anything health related. My dad was a three pack a day smoker for 60 years. He quit cold turkey the day he got his pace-maker installed. On his one year check up of the pace-maker they discovered a spot on his lungs. They went in and found two different types of cancer and he had half of one lung removed and has check-ups ever six months now. So far, so good. That was interesting to read, tazzy.. thanks for sharing it. It does make sense.

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 7:25:25 AM)
quote: There was an article in the NEJM years and years ago about smoking and cancer. The researcher indicated it was his finding that cancer was a pre-existing condition, which explains why some get it and some dont. They lay dormant for the most part, especially while smoking. It was when a smoker quit, according to the author, and the sloughing off of cells and rapid regeneration of the lining of the lungs occured that these pre-cancerous cells go into overdrive and mutate Do you have a link for that? I bet the cigarette companies are pleased with that. So maybe the end result might be..and I'm sure we'd see some great ad campaigns with a slant this way even if it's ever so subtle. "Don't start smoking but if you do..You better not quit!" It makes perfect sense..Putting harmful and toxic chemicals in your body aren't the cause afterall. Wow who would have guessed.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 7:36:25 AM)
HM has given several speaking engagements on this topic, lectures on it in a classroom setting, and has written at least one, (if not more...he's not here to ask) peer-reviewed studies on the effects of smoking and second hand smoke. According to him, it does cause cancer.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875