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

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.

quote:

because next year he'll be declared a survivor. 

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.

quote:

just like texting while driving increases your chances of having an accident."

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.

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)?

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?

quote:

How did you jump from what i posted to smoking isnt harmful?

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.

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?

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

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. 

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.

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.

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 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?

I don't know you from eve..so how about something other than your words for me? or not.

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.