RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer

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

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

Message

DarlingSavage -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 7:58:20 AM)
I believe it does cause cancer, as well, along with asthma, emphysema, COPD, bronchitis, and just about any other type of lung disease you can come up with. I don't think my dad had cancer that was lying dormant, the cancer spread to his brain before it was caught and he was a goner.

Louve00 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 8:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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 Good to know and thanks for the reassurance, Julia! [:)] I kind of said the remark a bit tongue in cheekish. If I die because I quit, my philosophy is it was meant to be. Just like my husband dying of lung cancer wasn't meant to be, because next year he'll be declared a survivor. When he first was diagnosed, I through myself into research about cancer. Lung cancer specifically, but any information on cancer I would digest. I did read somewhere that when you go into remission your body can actually have dormant cancer cells lied hidden within places in your body, which is why it comes back often in other places instead of the original place. (Thats called metastatic cancer). To make a long story short from all that I've read....after any major or possible terminally ill disease, its important to keep a healthy immune system to help ensure you give no opportunities to an unwanted situation. When I put him on a vitamin regimen, I went on the same one with him....just because lol.

DomKen -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 8:16:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 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. Just spent a while digging around on pubmed for such a study and couldn't find one. Do you remember any more details (a rough year would help)?

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 8:37:57 AM)
quote: because next year he'll be declared a survivor. That is sooooo awesome. I love reading stuff like that! quote: after any major or possible terminally ill disease, its important to keep a healthy immune system to help ensure you give no opportunities to an unwanted situation. When I put him on a vitamin regimen, I went on the same one with him....just because lol. Why not? It is just as easy to measure out vitamins for two as it is for one.... I figure even if I got lung cancer tomorrow I am still very happy I quit smoking. I have been healthier as a result of quiting these last 6 years. I thought I loved cigarettes, I was wrong, I hate them now. I hate the smell, the way they make your teeth look, the coughing, the allergies I had to ciggies I did not even know I had... just everything

xxblushesxx -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 8:43:05 AM)
Ok, after YIM'ing with him, he said the article is "technically correct" he went on to say "the correct statement is smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer. I deal with this exact same issue for oral cancer. just like texting while driving increases your chances of having an accident." OP, if you want to smoke, smoke. But be aware of the dangers.

juliaoceania -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 8:46:01 AM)
quote: just like texting while driving increases your chances of having an accident." And having sex without a condom risks HIV infection And drinking lots increases the likelihood of cirrhosis And playing Russian Roulette increases the odds of getting a bullet in your brain[:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 9:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys 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. How did you jump from what i posted to smoking isnt harmful?

tazzygirl -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 9:29:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 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. Just spent a while digging around on pubmed for such a study and couldn't find one. Do you remember any more details (a rough year would help)? I recall reading it when i was in nursing school. That would have been between 89 and 90. The article wasnt new then. So i would think, maybe between 70 and 86? I tried to find it on the NEJM site, but they dont have them archived back that far, or i would be required to pay to view the articles.

Dominatist -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 9:38:27 AM)
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 do an exemplary job of hiding all that equipment Bossy.

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 10:18:36 AM)
quote: How did you jump from what i posted to smoking isnt harmful? Don't take it to heart..it was a little sarcasm. What about the link though? I wasn't kidding about that.

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 10:22:45 AM)
quote: I recall reading it when i was in nursing school. That would have been between 89 and 90. The article wasnt new then. So i would think, maybe between 70 and 86? I tried to find it on the NEJM site, but they dont have them archived back that far, or i would be required to pay to view the articles. Yeah I looked as well and couldn't find anything. I would imagine if that were to be true..We might have heard more of it? I mean that's a long time with plenty of years to bring it to the forefront and yet we have tons of studies to the contrary?

Tantriqu -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 10:41:46 AM)
If you smoke three-quarters of a pack per day since a teen, by the time you die at 65, you've spent a million dollars on something scientifically designed by multinationals to be addictive, and with a 50/50 chance of killing you twenty years early from cancer, emphysema, stroke or heart disease, and giving your children and grandchildren cancer, asthma and cataracts. As for pollution, you don't sniff gas ten times a day; the concentration of carcinogens is far higher in every lungful of cigarette smoke you pull directly into your mouth than any background air pollution, so that straw can't be grasped. There are lots of things to help you quit, especially putting the price of a pack in the bank every day. Good luck. For those who need the classic illustration: http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/consequences.html

tazzygirl -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 11:53:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: I recall reading it when i was in nursing school. That would have been between 89 and 90. The article wasnt new then. So i would think, maybe between 70 and 86? I tried to find it on the NEJM site, but they dont have them archived back that far, or i would be required to pay to view the articles. Yeah I looked as well and couldn't find anything. I would imagine if that were to be true..We might have heard more of it? I mean that's a long time with plenty of years to bring it to the forefront and yet we have tons of studies to the contrary? You might have heard more about a study done 30 - 40 years ago, buried beneath the many studies from other groups seeking more and more financing? Can i move into the world you live in? It sure beats reality. No one said smoking didnt cause cancer. I offered a study that stated the cells had to be there first. That explains why some get it, some dont. Concidering small cell carcinoma is the leading cause of cancer caused by smoking accounts for 10-15% of lung cancer, that also makes sense.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 12:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: just like texting while driving increases your chances of having an accident." And having sex without a condom risks HIV infection And drinking lots increases the likelihood of cirrhosis And playing Russian Roulette increases the odds of getting a bullet in your brain[:D] Yes, exactly.

lally2 -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 2:56:11 PM)
i should really do an actual graph on the number of patients ive seen (as their podiatrist) who have cancer or are in remission who never smoked a fag in their lives and of those that did smoke, theyre cancer was unrelated to smoking - its been something ive been curious about for a while to be honest. having been a podiatrist now for nearly twenty years and seen alot of cancer patients over those years it is a curiosity for sure. emphysema however is prevalent. i think its pretty certain that familial propensity is a strong marker for cancer generally and i doubt that smoking helps.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 4:22:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 i should really do an actual graph on the number of patients ive seen (as their podiatrist) who have cancer or are in remission who never smoked a fag in their lives and of those that did smoke, theyre cancer was unrelated to smoking - its been something ive been curious about for a while to be honest. having been a podiatrist now for nearly twenty years and seen alot of cancer patients over those years it is a curiosity for sure. emphysema however is prevalent. i think its pretty certain that familial propensity is a strong marker for cancer generally and i doubt that smoking helps. You'd need to add in whether they lived with smokers either in their childhood or in the present. (or for long periods in their past.) You'd also need to add in whether they were exposed to smoke in their job; someone who works in a bar for instance.

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 4:25:45 PM)
quote: You might have heard more about a study done 30 - 40 years ago, buried beneath the many studies from other groups seeking more and more financing? Can i move into the world you live in? It sure beats reality. No one said smoking didnt cause cancer. I offered a study that stated the cells had to be there first. That explains why some get it, some dont. Concidering small cell carcinoma is the leading cause of cancer caused by smoking accounts for 10-15% of lung cancer, that also makes sense. Of course because you don't care for my "inappropriate" joke I then of course don't live in reality and you do [:D] Gotcha. On a more serious note: How about something other than you telling me about a study Start producing something we can fucking read since you brought it up?[8\|] I don't know you from eve..so how about something other than your words for me? or not.

DomKen -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 9:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 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. Just spent a while digging around on pubmed for such a study and couldn't find one. Do you remember any more details (a rough year would help)? I recall reading it when i was in nursing school. That would have been between 89 and 90. The article wasnt new then. So i would think, maybe between 70 and 86? I tried to find it on the NEJM site, but they dont have them archived back that far, or i would be required to pay to view the articles. pubmed and google scholar both return nothing. It sounds like it might have been a study from before we knew enough about cell genetics to know what cancer was. The fact is that the carciniogens in tobacco smoke change healthy cells DNA. Usually the mutations are benign or fatal to the affected cells. However occasionally the mutation makes the cell multiply out of control which is where tumors come from. We can sequence the genes of a tumor and see that (HeLa cells were studied for this as far back as the 1970's).

tazzygirl -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 10:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: You might have heard more about a study done 30 - 40 years ago, buried beneath the many studies from other groups seeking more and more financing? Can i move into the world you live in? It sure beats reality. No one said smoking didnt cause cancer. I offered a study that stated the cells had to be there first. That explains why some get it, some dont. Concidering small cell carcinoma is the leading cause of cancer caused by smoking accounts for 10-15% of lung cancer, that also makes sense. Of course because you don't care for my "inappropriate" joke I then of course don't live in reality and you do [:D] Gotcha. On a more serious note: How about something other than you telling me about a study Start producing something we can fucking read since you brought it up?[8\|] I don't know you from eve..so how about something other than your words for me? or not. Im supposed to care? lol I offered up something i read about many years ago. you dont have to believe it. i do find it interesting that because you cant find something on the web pertaining to something that was written before the "web" became popular then you believe it didnt exist. I dont care if you believe it or not. That wasnt the point of me posting about it. Do you also know other studies have stated that smoking causes damage to the lining of the lungs, causing a rapid regeneration that way? but again, there is the noting that a pre-cancerous cell would be present. There are studies that say smoking causes no damage, and others that say smoking causes every kind of cancer in the body. And some say alcohol causes just the same kind of damage. Instead of sucking on your thumb and demanding proof, why dont you put on your big boy panties and go read. Those studies, other than the initial one, are out there. Bet you will claim you cant find those either. But its what i have come to expect with you.

Icarys -> RE: Smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer (7/16/2010 10:37:31 PM)
quote: Im supposed to care? lol I offered up something i read about many years ago. you dont have to believe it. i do find it interesting that because you cant find something on the web pertaining to something that was written before the "web" became popular then you believe it didnt exist. I dont care if you believe it or not. That wasnt the point of me posting about it. Do you also know other studies have stated that smoking causes damage to the lining of the lungs, causing a rapid regeneration that way? but again, there is the noting that a pre-cancerous cell would be present. There are studies that say smoking causes no damage, and others that say smoking causes every kind of cancer in the body. And some say alcohol causes just the same kind of damage. Instead of sucking on your thumb and demanding proof, why dont you put on your big boy panties and go read. Those studies, other than the initial one, are out there. Bet you will claim you cant find those either. But its what i have come to expect with you. When citing a study maybe you should keep your trap shut unless you have proof of something...I know you won't because it's what I've come to expect out of you as well along with the attempts to dress a person down when they show just how stupid something was that you've said. Somebody evidently isn't watching the hen house.[:D]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625