LUNG LEADING TYPE OF CANCER
Lauren A. Colby
>Lung leading type of cancer in U.S.
>3,200 Kentuckians may die from it this year
>
>By Lydia Carrico
>The Messenger-Inquirer, Kentucky
>Friday, March 23, 2001
>
>The latest national cancer statistics show that lung
>cancer leads all other types and that 87 percent of the
>cases are caused by smoking cigarettes.
>
>The figures, released from the American Cancer Society,
>estimate that 157,400 Americans will die this year from
>lung cancer. In Kentucky, 3,200 residents are expected to
>die from lung and related cancers.
>
>"Kentucky has a much higher rate in lung cancer compared
>to the nation," said Dr. Dattatraya Prajapati, an
>oncologist in Owensboro. "The only state higher in death
>rates in lung cancer is Nevada."
>
>The ACS annually releases statistics that show the
>expected numbers of new cancer cases and deaths. This
>year, the society released a companion publication,
>Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2001,
>with information on tobacco use, nutrition, physical
>activity and screening recommendations.
>
>Nationwide, an estimated 553,400 Americans are expected
>to die from all types of cancer this year. Last year,
>treating cancer patients cost the nation $180.2 billion.
>
>Breast cancer ranks second among all cancer deaths in
>women, according to the national report. In men, prostate
>cancer ranks second. Colon and rectal cancers are the
>third most common cancers in men and women.
>
>Local numbers are consistent with the national figures,
>Prajapati said.
>
>At Owensboro Mercy Health System, which treats patients
>from a 10-county area, lung cancer cases outnumbered all
>others in 1999, the latest year for which statistics are
>available. Of the 658 total cases, 133 were lung cancers,
>or 20 percent.
>
>Figures for 2000 should be released in May, said Rhonda
>Paul, certified tumor registrar at the OMHS Cancer
>Registry.
>
>"By looking at what we have so far, we probably are going
>to be right in line for what we had last year," Paul
>said. "We are consistently as a state one of the highest
>in the nation for lung cancer."
>
>Lung cancer
>
>Anyone can develop cancer, but certain risk factors
>increase the chance, the ACS says. For example, male
>smokers are 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer
>than nonsmokers, and female smokers are 12 times more
>likely.
>
>Nationwide, an estimated 169,500 cases will be diagnosed
>this year. In Kentucky, with a statewide smoking rate of
>30 percent, that number is projected to be 3,400.
>
>From 1990 to 1997, fewer men died from lung cancer -- 1.7
>percent -- while rates for women increased, the ACS says.
>
>Between 1975 and 1996, the one-year survival rate for
>lung cancer increased from 34 percent to 41 percent.
>However, the five-year rate for all stages of lung cancer
>combined is 14 percent.
>
>Breast cancer
>
>An estimated 192,200 new cases of breast cancer are
>expected nationwide this year. In Kentucky, 2,900
>residents are expected to be diagnosed with breast
>cancer, and 600 women are expected to die.
>
>The risk of having breast cancer increases with age, the
>ACS says. Risks are higher among women with a family
>history of the disease and those who started their
>menstrual cycle early. Being obese after menopause, using
>oral contraceptives or post-menopausal hormone therapy
>and giving birth after age 30 or never giving birth also
>increase risks.
>
>Mammography continues to be recommended to identify
>breast cancer in its earliest stages, the cancer society
>says. It recommends women 40 and older have an annual
>mammogram, annual breast examination by a doctor and
>monthly self-exams.
>
>Prostate cancer
>
>An estimated 198,100 new cases of prostate cancer will be
>diagnosed nationwide this year. In Kentucky, 2,800
>residents will be diagnosed, with black men being at an
>increased risk, the ACS says.
>
>Between 1988 and 1992, rates increased due to heightened
>screenings. Since then, the rates have leveled off.
>
>Symptoms of prostate cancer include weak or interrupted
>urine flow, the need to urinate frequently, blood in the
>urine, pain or burning during urination and pain in the
>lower back, pelvis or upper thighs.
>
>The ACS recommends men 50 and older have annual prostate-
>specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectum tests. Men at
>high risk should begin the exams at age 45, the ACS says.
>
>Colon and rectum
>
>An estimated 135,400 new cases of colon and rectal
>cancers will be diagnosed nationwide this year. In
>Kentucky, that number is 2,200.
>
>These cancers have declined slightly -- 1.6 percent --
>from 1985 to 1997 due to increased screenings and polyp
>removal.
>
>Symptoms of colon and rectal cancers include rectal
>bleeding, pain, blood in the stool and changes in bowel
>habits. People with a family history of the disease or
>with inflammatory bowel disease are at increased risk,
>the ACS says.
>
>Other risk factors include smoking, inactivity, high-fat
>and low-fiber diets and alcohol consumption.
>
>The ACS recommends annual fecal occult blood tests and
>flexible sigmoidoscopy every five years for people age 50
>and older.
I find it interesting that the medical authorities have no idea what causes
prostate cancer, breast cancer or colo-rectai cancer (being reduced to listing
"risk factors") - yet, they purport to know exactly what causes lung cancer. I
suggest that if an objective scientist were to come down from Mars and begin
studying the causes of human cancer, he would begin by looking for a cause,
common to all types of cancer or at least, all types which manifest themselves
in the form of uncontrollable tumors. It isn't likely that he would begin by
looking for different causes for tumors which have essentially the same
characteristics and are differentiated only by their sites within the body.
If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking, why
has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of time
when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
females by more than a third?
Larry
Robert Woodburn
J Wootton
> Excellent post, Lauren. Good to see you posting again!
>
> "Lauren A. Colby" wrote:
>
> > snipped
> > >Lung leading type of cancer in U.S.
> > >3,200 Kentuckians may die from it this year
> > >
> > >By Lydia Carrico
> > >The Messenger-Inquirer, Kentucky
> > >Friday, March 23, 2001
> > >
Wouldn't do to include coal dust as one of the occupational contributing factors,
would it?
http://www.lung.ca/diseases/asbestosis.html
Not to mention that perhaps coal is being used locally as an energy resource in the
home or businesses?
http://www-dceg.ims.nci.nih.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview?direct=luncwm70
> > If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking, why
> > has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of time
> > when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
> > females by more than a third?
http://web.kcr.uky.edu/
If you can find the info.
Seems simple enough. If the person was a smoker and worked in XXXXX, the cause was
smoking.
If they weren't a smoker... "cause unknown"?
J
Lauren A. Colby
>
>Excellent post, Lauren. Good to see you posting again!
>
I generally post only when there is some phony study or set of phony statistics
which requires a response.
During the Clinton administration, I was kept busy because phony studies were
coming out at the rate of one a month. This was no accident. Hundreds of
millions of government dollars were diverted to politically connected
laboratories, for anti-smoking "studies" and they were all specious.
A typical trick was to write that "rats, exposed to tobacco-specific
nitrosamines, developed lung tumors". The authors of these little gems never
bothered to disclose that:
(a) By "exposed", they meant that the rats were fed the nitrosamines in their
food or drinking water - as opposed to being forced to inhale the nitrosamines;
and
(b) They used specially bred rats, all of whom developed lung tumors - the only
difference between the "exposed" rats and the controls was that the "exposed"
rats developed somewhat more tumors than the controls; and
(c) The "tobacco specific" nitrosamines were in the same chemical class as the
nitrosamines that we regularly eat in bacon, sausage and other meats cured with
nitrites.
Interestingly, these experiments were duplicated over and over again at
laboratories in Valhalla, NY; Minneapolis, MN; and UC (Davis). Now, duplication
in science is a good thing - an experiment that can't be repeated is
meaningless. However, the experimenters also duplicated each other's tricks:
playing around with that word "exposed"; glossing over the fact that they were
using specially bred animals; and failing to disclose that the nitrosamines they
used were chemically very similar to those found in common foods, long approved
for human consumption.
The authors also failed to disclose that they were continuing to conduct
extensive studies, forcing rats and mice to inhale tobacco smoke 24 hours a day,
5 days per week (these were lazy experimenters - they didn't work on weekends),
and that like countless similar experiments in the past, these experiments were
all failures: no lung tumors.
With the departure of the Clintons, the flow of phony studies seems to have
dried up and so have my postings. That's fine with me!
Larry
Beachhouse
"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:99j0i...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>
> If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking,
why
> has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of
time
> when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
> females by more than a third?
>
> Larry
a) this is an article from the popular media, not primary epidemiologic
data.
b) we don't know if these are incidence rates or prevalence rates (which
would probably answer your question)
c) most lung cancers are (unfortunately) diagnosed in advanced stages, and
are the result of years of prior exposure to carcinogens.
d) i'm not sure your assessment of the "rate" of smoking and overall
tobacco exposure is quite so optimistic. (nationally? in kentucky?)
e) hopefully we would see a *future* reduction in *incidence* rates for lung
cancer if there is, in fact, a sustained trend towards lower rates of
tobacco abuse (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.)
Dave Hitt
>Seems simple enough. If the person was a smoker and worked in XXXXX, the cause was
>smoking.
>If they weren't a smoker... "cause unknown"?
That's pretty much it.
My mother died of lung cancer at age 45. She didn't smoke. The cause
of death was listed as cancer. Listing smoking as the cause of her
death would have been stupid and inaccurate.
If she was a smoker, and had died on the exact same day at the exact
same time, what do you suppose would have been listed as the cause of
death? And would it have been any smarter, or more accurate?
----
Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what is your
conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate proportion of
lung cancer caused by smoking.
BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused by
smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
Jeff Utz
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
news:3ac71c17...@news4.newscene.com...
Billy Goat Gruff III
second hand smoke theory.
Maybe you recall the study "showing" that second hand smoke caused
SIDS. At least that is what the headline said, on further look, the
smoking parents were asked to place the babies on their bellies to
sleep while the non-smoking parents were instructed to place the
babies on their backs or sides to sleep. The only thing this study
proved was that laying babies on their belly increases the chance of
SIDS. (something that had already been proven)
Or how about the study that placed the rabbit's head in a tube then
drew the smoke past their head with a slow fan. Basicaly (to use a
drug term) shotgunning the rabbit. I would not consider "shotgunning"
as second hand smoke.
The point is we all know that tabacco is not good for us in any
quantity, but that is no reason to "color" studies to prove it. Good
science is a service, bad science is a dis-service, even if that bad
science is attempting to do good.
Mike
All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted.
Copyright ©2001 Michael Cummings All Rights Reserved
=================================
Leah's Body Sugaring Recipe
Remove unwanted hair
http://www.for-romance.com/sugar
==================================
For the Billy Goat Gruff song visit
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm
Note: This page is not owned by me
Kevin Gavitt
"Jeffrey Peter, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2068A0694CBCED18.F3E0189F...@lp.airnews.net...
> Yeah, except only 1/3 of people in this country smoke. So if 85% of all
> people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what is your
> conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate proportion
of
> lung cancer caused by smoking.
>
> BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused by
> smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
>
> Jeff Utz
>
Oh goody, another mouse to play with. Don't all jump on it at once people,
we don't want it all broken and bleeding before everyone has had at least
one chance to whack it around a bit.
KFG
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
However, were all the studies "colored?"
Jeff Utz
"Billy Goat Gruff III" <Troll...@for-romance.com> wrote in message
news:3abe21f2...@news.earthlink.net...
Billy Goat Gruff III
tends to color the data. Scientists for the anti-tobbaco groups ALWAYS
find in their favor, scientist for the pro-tobbaco groups ALWAYS find
in their favor.
This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the govt
scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
find ... they will find.
Mike
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:26:37 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
> I would hope not. Unfortunatly when funds are tied to an interest it
> tends to color the data. Scientists for the anti-tobbaco groups ALWAYS
> find in their favor, scientist for the pro-tobbaco groups ALWAYS find
> in their favor.
>
Really, why then are most drugs in early phases of clinical studies shelved
by the drug companies when they don't work as hoped?
> This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the govt
> scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
> find ... they will find.
>
Can you support with contention with facts?
Jeff Utz
Lauren A. Colby
men in the U.S. over the age of 18 were smokers. The last CDC figures I saw, I
believe for 1999, showed that the rate was down to about 22%. So male smoking
has been cut by two thirds, with no significant difference in the lung cancer
death rate.
For females, a survey taken in 1965 and published in International Smoking
Statistics showed that overall, 34% of the women smoked (but 42% smoked in the
age group from 25 to 44). Again the latest CDC figures I have seen suggest that
the female smoking rate is now about the same as the male rate, so it's declined
by about a third.
I'm not sure of the distinction you are drawing between the incidence rate and
the prevalence rate. Perhaps you mean to distinguish the incidence rate from the
death rate. However, when dealing with lung cancer - which has less than a five
year survival rate - the distinction is relatively unimportant. Most lung cancer
incidents translate into deaths within a few months of diagnosis.
Larry
Billy Goat Gruff III
<kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Really, why then are most drugs in early phases of clinical studies shelved
>by the drug companies when they don't work as hoped?
Simple answer is they were told to find something that works and is
profitable, if the new drug does not meet this criteria it is dropped.
>> This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the govt
>> scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
>> find ... they will find.
>
>Can you support with contention with facts?
Yes, I can. I will cite one specific example below. First let me
explain that my main research is in Crohn's disease, I am not a doctor
nor do I have formal scientific training. What I do posses is a strong
mind and a vested interest in my research. (I have CD) I should also
state I am not anti-milk or meat.
The USDA in an attempt to prove that the mycobacterium avium ss.
paratuberculosis (MAP) bacteria (cause of Johne's disease and may
cause or trigger CD) did not survive the pasteurization process,
"colored" the data by subjecting the MAP bacteria used to a number of
dubious elements.
The standard pasteurization process is holding raw milk at 72 Celsius
for 15 seconds. Using this method and retail milk supply testing, MAP
bacteria has been found to survive pasteurization. Testing of retail
milk in the UK showed a 3% - 5% contamination of MAP. In other words
they were able to grow MAP from 3 out of 100 milk containers.
The USDA "simulated" pasteurization process method produced 0% MAP
contamination. The USDA process first "starved" the bacteria, then
subjected them to sound waves (not sure off the top of my head if it
was high or low freq.), then the bacteria were frozen. They were added
to the milk, the sample pasteurized with the standard hold time and
temp. The culture media used to grow the MAP in after pasteurization
was inadequate for the bacteria. (MAP requires mycobactin to be in the
media, as it does not make it's own. no mycobactin no growth). Then
the culture was grown for no longer than 3 months even though it takes
at least 4 months for a positive determination of MAP growth.
Bad science in my book.
I can give other examples, like safe levels of chemicals that the
govt. says are safe and will only back down from their position after
many studies and public outcry. Unfortunately I do not have the time
to research those out. CD research in my only focus right now. I don't
want to give "data" that I cannot prove. That would be bad science,
and trollish.
Mike
Beachhouse
> The 1964 Surgeon General's Report showed that in the peak year, 1961, 68%
of all
> men in the U.S. over the age of 18 were smokers. The last CDC figures I
saw, I
> believe for 1999, showed that the rate was down to about 22%. So male
smoking
> has been cut by two thirds, with no significant difference in the lung
cancer
> death rate.
>
>
> I'm not sure of the distinction you are drawing between the incidence rate
and
> the prevalence rate. Perhaps you mean to distinguish the incidence rate
from the
> death rate. However, when dealing with lung cancer - which has less than a
five
> year survival rate - the distinction is relatively unimportant. Most lung
cancer
> incidents translate into deaths within a few months of diagnosis.
>
There's no doubt that (fortunately) the overall prevalence of smoking among
adults in the united states (as a whole) is less than it was in the 1960's.
It remains high among minorities, lower socioeconomic groups, and in certain
geographic locales -- for example, Kentucky, which is a state that has
particularly high tobacco abuse.
You wonder why the "rate" of lung cancer is so "high" in Kentucky (based on
the earlier posted news article) if the "rate" of smoking is declining
overall -- since, in your view, this is incompatible with smoking being the
"cause" of lung cancer.
To understand *your* question, you must learn about incidence and
prevalence rates --as well as understand the overall epidemiology and
pathogenesis of lung cancer itself. Basically, the points I made earlier
are the key ones. We don't know if the newspaper article is referring to
newly diagnosed cases or overall prevalence data. You are completely in
error when you quote "a few months" as the average survival for lung cancer
patients -- this is grossly incorrect because "averages" lump together
patients with different stages and histologic categories. The media,
again, not only considers "cancer" to be (erroneously) a *single* disease,
but also erroneously refers to "lung cancer" as a single disease -- when, in
fact, there are a variety of different types of lung cancer. The ones most
commonly associated with smoking are squamous cell tumors and small cell
tumors. The ones associated most commonly with occupational exposures are
those such as mesotheliomas -- commonly associated with asbestos exposure.
Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer *are* diagnosed in advanced
stages (II or III or IV) -- unfortunately -- because there is considerable
controversy about whether screening for lung cancer makes sense to begin
with. But Stage I non-small cell patients are essentially *cured* by
surgical intervention. And patients with Stage II or III non-small cell
disease may live *years* with palliative therapy. Again, an epidemiologist
would want to know whether we're dealing with incidence or prevalence data,
as well as the overall staging & histologic info. for Kentucky. In any
event, the cancers that *are* being detected, are the result of exposures to
carcinogens that began *years* previously. So you commit an error of
logic/rationalization when you see data pointing to declining smoking
behavior and then conclude that the high rate (?prevalence ?incidence) of
lung cancer in Kentucky during this same period must somehow *not* be
related to tobacco abuse. Get my drift?
I hope you took the time to carefully read what I posted. If you have the
time, your local community college or university may offer an introductory
course in epidemiology that may help you considerably in interpreting not
only popular media articles, like this one, but also reading the scientific
literature in general -- without bias.
There are some excellent introductory textbooks in this area as well.
Beachhouse
"e) hopefully we would see a *future* reduction in *incidence* rates for
lung
cancer if there is, in fact, a sustained trend towards lower rates of
tobacco abuse (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.)"
The problem is that we have a whole new generation of smokers out there ...
puffing away. Note that the CDC data you quoted refers to "adult" smokers.
My guess is that we'll still see a ton of new cases unless things change in
a hurry.
"Beachhouse" <sendn...@please.com> wrote in message
news:99lfgl$15dnu$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
Lauren A. Colby
"Jeffrey says...
>
>Yeah, except only 1/3 of people in this country smoke. So if 85% of all
>people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what is your
>conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate proportion of
>lung cancer caused by smoking.
>
>BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused by
>smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
>
>Jeff Utz
>
are current smokers at the time of diagnosis!
A 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, conducted at Brigham and Women's Hospital in
Boston revealed that 59% of the patients were NOT smokers at the time of
diagnosis. Of these, 8% of the sample had never smoked; 51% had smoked at one
time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, fully one fourth had been off
cigarettes for at least 20 years.
A more recent study by Fong at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Institute yielded almost
identical results.
As for second hand smoke, the studies, overwhelmingly, suggest that second hand
smoke is harmless or even beneficial. Out of 30 studies in different countries,
involving the effects of smoking by one spouse on another, non-smoking spouse,
24 showed no statistically significant increase in lung cancer as a result of
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke). And a recent very massive study by the World
Health Organization suggested that ETS may even have a protective effect.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
No, I do not get your drift.
The Merck Manual tells us that "On the average, patients with untreated
bronchogenic carcinoma survive 9 months. Only about 25% of the tumors are
resectable and the 5 year survival rate for the TOTAL group is <10%" [emphasis
supplied]. Thus, while there are undoubtably a few lung cancer survivors who
hang on for years (I knew one woman who lived 15 years), they are so few in
number as to be statistically insignificant.
When the American Cancer Society originally identified smoking as the "cause" of
lung cancer, they proudly proclaimed that after five years of cessation, the
lungs would "clear" and the ex-smoker would no longer be at risk. Millions quit
and the smoking prevalences in the U.S. began a long, deep decline. The LCDR
(lung cancer death rate), however, continued to rise. So, like the Ptolemaic
astrologers of ancient times (who invented new epicycles to explain away each
inconvenient piece of data which seemed to contradict their view that the sun
revolved around the earth), the ACS began inventing new and ever-longer
"incubation periods" for lung cancer.
First it was ten years, then 20, 30 and now as much as 40. Of course, if it's 30
to 40 years, there's no point in quitting smoking. The smoker might as well keep
puffing away, since he is damned to a death from lung cancer, whether he quits
or not!
What we are concerned with here, from an epidemiological point of view, is not
the static rate of smoking in Kentucky or the static rate of new lung cancer
cases. I've seen the smoking prevalence figures for Kentucky and they are a
little higher than in the nation as a whole because they were always a little
higher. But in Kentucky, as elsewhere, the issue is simply the rate of change.
LCDR's have been going up while smoking declined. If, as medical science
stubbornly insists, the disease is dose-related, this result is nonsensical.
Beginning in 1961, Americans began quitting in smoking in droves and at all
ages. Perhaps some had already contracted the fatal dose, but surely millions of
others had not. Thus, LCDR's should have begun an immediate, gradual decline.
They didn't.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
>
>I would add:
>
>"e) hopefully we would see a *future* reduction in *incidence* rates for
>lung
>cancer if there is, in fact, a sustained trend towards lower rates of
>tobacco abuse (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.)"
>
>The problem is that we have a whole new generation of smokers out there ...
>puffing away. Note that the CDC data you quoted refers to "adult" smokers.
>My guess is that we'll still see a ton of new cases unless things change in
>a hurry.
>
>
According to a 1995 Report, published on the CDC website, the national rate of
cigarette smoking declined from 52% of men and 26% of women in 1965, to 28% of
men and 24% of women in 1991. This is for adults 18 years and older. The 1964
Surgeon General's Report gave a figure of 68% for male smoking in 1961. Thus,
the actual decline in the male rate from 1961 to 1991 was from 68% down to 28%
During the same time period lung cancer death rates (LCDR's) for both sexes
rose, substantially.
Larry
CBI
news:rLpv6.279535$v.322...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
There you have it. To these people it is just a game. It's kind of like the
defense attorney who takes pride in getting guilty people off on
technicalities. Rational discussion is not the point. Since these guys spend
a lot of time on their newsgroup rehashing these arguments it would be
difficult for one person to swoop in and do the research necessary to debunk
all the claims of bad science and supporting studies. Even if you did they
would just play word games and try to cloud the issues.
Bottom line: smoking and second hand smoke causes lung cancer, many other
types of cancer, and heart disease as well as other problems. Everyone
credible knows it. It has been proven to the point of certainty. There is no
reason to try to win an argument with zealots or to try to convince those
who refuse to come out of denial.
If anyone really is in doubt I would suggest reviewing credible sources and
not listening to Internet whackos.
--
CBI, MD
Alex W.
Jeffrey Peter, M.D. <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F225945A8898A665.1BB0E386...@lp.airnews.net...
> "Billy Goat Gruff III" <Troll...@for-romance.com> wrote in message
> news:3abe2abb...@news.earthlink.net...
> > I would hope not. Unfortunatly when funds are tied to an interest it
> > tends to color the data. Scientists for the anti-tobbaco groups
ALWAYS
> > find in their favor, scientist for the pro-tobbaco groups ALWAYS find
> > in their favor.
> >
>
> Really, why then are most drugs in early phases of clinical studies
shelved
> by the drug companies when they don't work as hoped?
One word: money.
If a pharmaceutical product is brought onto the market which later turns
out to be unsafe or harmful, the liability lawsuits can ruin a company.
Read up on Dow Corning who went from a Wall Street darling to bankruptcy
court in the space of a year thanks to liability suits over breast
implants. Or look up the thalidomide scandal.
>
> > This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the
govt
> > scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
> > find ... they will find.
> >
>
> Can you support with contention with facts?
Speaking from the UK, the most egregious example of recent times must be
the government studies purporting to show that BSE was harmless, that
there was nothing to worry about, indeed that there was no such thing as
variant CJD.
Regards,
Alex W
Alex W.
CBI <replyto...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:99lq5g$5p3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> Bottom line: smoking and second hand smoke causes lung cancer, many
other
> types of cancer, and heart disease as well as other problems. Everyone
> credible knows it. It has been proven to the point of certainty.
Pretend you are speaking to a four year old and tell me how you can prove
anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics, that the
sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms of
cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause cancer"
because that would imply that every smoker will always contract cancer.
There is no
> reason to try to win an argument with zealots or to try to convince
those
> who refuse to come out of denial.
>
> If anyone really is in doubt I would suggest reviewing credible sources
and
> not listening to Internet whackos.
Strangely enough, I find myself tempted to quote your last two sentences
back at you unchanged. Can you guess why?
For the record, I am aware of the risk and I have no desire to understate
the risk. However, neither do I have any desire to overstate the risk to
the point of neglecting other possible causes of cancer -- which is
precisely the effect of anti-smoking agitation. How many lung cancer
victims will suffer and die because all that attention and research money
is being concentrated on tobacco?
What is worse, anti-smoking sentiment is leading to double standards
being applied all over public life; what else would you call bans on
tobacco while hardly batting an eyelash at the free consumption of
alcohol, or the increasing pollution of our air and water? IS being
beaten to a pulp by a drunk father or run over by a lush behind the wheel
any better than breathing in some ETS?
Specifically, this has lead to situations such as that obtaining in air
travel these days where smoking was banned on board aircraft (ostensibly
to protect the health of cabin staff) with the result that air quality
has *deteriorated* as airlines took the opportunity to cut air filtration
costs and may well have already cost passenger lives (insufficient
filtration allows CO to build up to dangerous if not fatal levels). This
particular ban was entirely negative in intent and application -- if
there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health, would
it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn meat on
charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
concerned, yes sirree....
Alex W.
A question to either (both) of you: are any of those figures corrected
for our overall increased life expectancy?
It just occurs to me that we always assume that lung cancer rates are
rising, and that the rise is (allegedly) entirely due to smoking. But if
people died ten or twenty years younger only fifty years ago, how could
we compare the rate of lung cancer? It is, after all, a disease with a
very long incubation period and tends to crop up in what is now late
middle age.
Alex
Beachhouse
> No, I do not get your drift.
That's pretty obvious. It's just not as simple as you'd like to believe it
is.
>
> The Merck Manual tells us that "On the average, patients with untreated
> bronchogenic carcinoma survive 9 months. Only about 25% of the tumors are
> resectable and the 5 year survival rate for the TOTAL group is <10%"
[emphasis
> supplied]. Thus, while there are undoubtably a few lung cancer survivors
who
> hang on for years (I knew one woman who lived 15 years), they are so few
in
> number as to be statistically insignificant.
>
The data you post is just plain WRONG. We're talking about survival data
for patients who are *treated*. Lumping survival rates for *all* stages
together is meaningless -- even Stage II patients have up to a 40-50% 5-year
survival. Anywhere from 5-30% of patients with Stage II disease can be
alive after 5 years. are meaningless. Phrases like "statistically
insignificant" are tossed around so often on USENET that it's obvious you
have little understanding of what such a phrase *really* means. You just
don't understand what you're talking about, sorry -- which makes it
difficult to make this an interesting discussion. It's tedious, actually.
> the ACS began inventing new and ever-longer
> "incubation periods" for lung cancer.
>
> The smoker might as well keep
> puffing away, since he is damned to a death from lung cancer, whether he
quits
> or not!
My point was only to comment on how erroneous your assumptions were based on
a specific newspaper article reporting "rates" of cancer in Kentucky.
Also, I wanted to point out how important it is to dig a bit deeper to
uncover the truth about what's reported in media articles related to public
health/medicine. It's sad if you base your own personal decision to
continue smoking upon faulty logic; i.e. that it's futile to quit, because
you've already been "exposed." I can't convince you that the ACS doesn't
"invent" data, so I won't even try. We're entering "black helicopter"
territory now...
> What we are concerned with here, from an epidemiological point of view, is
not
> the static rate of smoking in Kentucky or the static rate of new lung
cancer
> cases.
This is amusing only because you used the word "epidemiological" (the
correct term, is 'epidemiologic') and "static rate" (which is another
meaningless, paradoxical, and non-existent epidemiologic term) in the same
sentence. I assume you are actually asserting that the number of smokers
in Kentucky has *not* decreased and has actually been "static" over (?what
period) of time. This makes the newspaper article even more interesting
given the reported *increase* in ?prevalence ?incidence of "lung cancer"
cases
> I've seen the smoking prevalence figures for Kentucky and they are a
> little higher than in the nation as a whole because they were always a
little
> higher.
? what, exactly, does this sentence mean? You may want to re-read it.
> But in Kentucky, as elsewhere, the issue is simply the rate of change.
> LCDR's have been going up while smoking declined.
That's not what was reported in that article. We don't know *what* rates
were actually described, but they don't appear to be *case fatality* rates.
Further, we don't have any data on whether the prevalence of smoking in
Kentucky mirrors the national average. Further, we don't know the
characteristics of the "cases" reported in that article. Further, as I
tried to show you, lung cancer is not a single disease -- as you persist in
simplistically believing.
> If, as medical science
> stubbornly insists, the disease is dose-related, this result is
nonsensical.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue here. It may not make sense to
you, but it's the truth. Sorry. The number of years you smoke, and the
number of packs per day is key.
> Beginning in 1961, Americans began quitting in smoking in droves and at
all
> ages.
Nope. sorry.. the CDC estimates on smoking you refer to include only
*adults* (not all ages). It's difficult to collect data on smoking among
minors; but the overall trend is increasing -- especially among teenage
*girls.* Further, while adult smoking rates have declined over 40 years,
they still remain high in a number of specific groups (as I pointed out to
you earlier). The vast majority ( 80%) of lung cancer cases *are* directly
attributable to smoking -- whether or not you choose to believe that. And,
recent data actually suggests that lung cancer cases in the U.S. *are*
declining -- prostate cancer has now taken the lead among males. Maybe,
hopefully, we're already seeing the impact on decreased smoking among
adults. Hey, it's your life -- best of luck. And if you're in the habit of
inhaling radon, sniffing asbestos, or mining uranium -- you may wish to
rethink your career choice.
Beachhouse
"Beachhouse" <sendn...@please.com> wrote in message
news:99lttu$1615q$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> The data you post are just plain WRONG. We're talking about survival
data
> for patients who are *treated*. Lumping survival rates for *all* stages
> together is meaningless -- even Stage II patients have up to a 40-50%
5-year
> survival. Anywhere from 5-30% of patients with Stage III disease can be
> alive after 5 years. Phrases like "statistically
Dave Hitt
>Yeah, except only 1/3 of people in this country smoke. So if 85% of all
>people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what is your
>conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate proportion of
>lung cancer caused by smoking.
>
>BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused by
>smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
You asshole.
Read this. Learn something.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
Alex W.
Let's see now...
Say a scientist finishes a study which suggests an increased risk of
impotence by smokers by 13%, complete with all the relevant figures such
as sample size, confidence intervals, RR and God knows what else. Say
that it is a genuinely independent study, conducted with impeccable
scientific rigour. What happens now? A group like ASH picks up on it
and publicises the result, in all probability leaving out all those
important but confusing details like confounders or control group size.
They tell their story to educationally average journalists who are in all
probability incapable of following a complex statistical argument to save
their lives, and who are furthermore required to put this information
into easily digestable form for their readers, complete with eye-catching
headline. The result: a study suggesting a possible connection between
smoking and impotence is reduced to two columns in the morning paper with
a headline screaming that "SMOKING CAUSES IMPOTENCE". Is that the truth?
Never mind truth, is that factually correct? No, it isn't, and your
above post tells me you would agree with me on this.
So can you accept that with all this triply predigested misleading pap
being thrown at us we have become extremely reluctant to take anything at
face value? That we have become very sceptical indeed of any scientific
study that comes along? That we have massive problems indeed with
anything that has passed through the hands of confirmed and
self-confessed anti-smokers? And all that before we even start to get to
grips with highly complex issues full of inconclusive, inconsistent and
sometimes contradictory evidence......
Alex W
Dave Hitt
>I agree. Bad science is a disservice to society.
>
>However, were all the studies "colored?"
Virtually every one. The one exception was the WHO study, which was a
textbook example of the right way to do an epidemiological study.
It found NO statistical significance between ETS and cancer. None.
In fact, the only number what was statistically significant was that
the children of smokers were 22% *less* likely to get lung cancer.
People who live and work in smoky environments inhale an average of
six cigarettes worth of smoke...a YEAR. That's not a guess, that's
not an estimation, but actual measurements taken from non-smokers
wearing portable air pumps. Care to explain how .016 of a cigarette a
day is going to cause lung cancer?
And that's for people who spend a significant amount of time in the
presence of smokers. If they're getting a hundredth of a cigarette a
day, how much is someone getting from an occasional visit to a bar or
restaurant that allows smoking?
Dave Hitt
>> Oh goody, another mouse to play with. Don't all jump on it at once people,
>> we don't want it all broken and bleeding before everyone has had at least
>> one chance to whack it around a bit.
>>
>
>There you have it. To these people it is just a game. It's kind of like the
>defense attorney who takes pride in getting guilty people off on
>technicalities. Rational discussion is not the point.
If rational discussion were the point, you would't be making stupid,
false statements like you do in this very post.
>Since these guys spend
>a lot of time on their newsgroup rehashing these arguments it would be
>difficult for one person to swoop in and do the research necessary to debunk
>all the claims of bad science and supporting studies. Even if you did they
>would just play word games and try to cloud the issues.
You're running scared. You're right, we do have a great deal of
expertise in this subject. That's why you can't deal with us, because
our expertise outstrips your own. And, with those letters behind your
name, that really pisses you off, doesn't it?
>Bottom line: smoking and second hand smoke causes lung cancer,
Bottom line is you're full of shit. Second hand smoke does NOT cause
lung cancer. That has been proven, as well as you can prove a
negative. There is NO connection, none at all, between SHS and lung
cancer. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. That was confirmed by none other than
the World Health Organization, in their huge, long, and carefully
conducted study.
As to primary smoke, it is a contributing factor, but considering that
only a tiny percentage of smokers get it saying "it causes lung
cancer" is misleading and dishonest. It's like saying "driving a car
causes drivers and passengers to die in car accidents." Yeah,
sometimes it does, but not nearly as often as you self proclaimed
experts would have everyone believe.
>many other
>types of cancer, and heart disease as well as other problems. Everyone
>credible knows it. It has been proven to the point of certainty.
And here you remove any doubt about your credibility to judge science.
Anyone who would make that statement, about almost anything, is a
complete moron on the subject of science.
> There is no
>reason to try to win an argument with zealots or to try to convince those
>who refuse to come out of denial.
But we still debate with you anyhow.
Lauren A. Colby
>
>Bottom line: smoking and second hand smoke causes lung cancer, many other
>types of cancer, and heart disease as well as other problems. Everyone
>credible knows it. It has been proven to the point of certainty. There is no
>reason to try to win an argument with zealots or to try to convince those
>who refuse to come out of denial.
>
>If anyone really is in doubt I would suggest reviewing credible sources and
>not listening to Internet whackos.
>
>--
>CBI, MD
>
>
http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages.htm
The figures there are compiled from the CIA factbook and the official health
statistics of 87 different countries. In short, they are eminently credible
sources and they show no correlation between smoking prevalences, LCDR's or life
expectancies.
Larry
Beachhouse
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99m07u$j5q$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Your post is extremely reasonable.. and I can completely sympathize with
your point of view. You are sophisticated enough to realize that you're
getting overly simplified reporting of science and medicine from the mass
media -- and you're skeptical enough to want to know more. That's fine.
There are many causes for this problem, though. Our kids get a crappy
education in science, the reporters who write this stuff often don't
understand it themselves, and the few media outlets that *do* report
responsibly on science (e.g. Scientific American, PBS, etc.) just don't
command the ratings that "Entertainment Tonight" and "USA Today" do. Add
to that physicians who may also have problems critically appraising the
literature (or finding the time to do so... or finding the time to explain
it in detail to skeptical patients) and you have a major problem which
impacts on the quality of medicine and science in this country. You see
stories constantly being reported on with conflicting conclusions/results
and you're bound to throw up your hands and say, "all this stuff is just
garbage."
I'm more than happy to patiently debate truly controversial topics -- but
stubbornly clinging to the belief that there is some "anti-smoking" cabal
which has conspired to "cook" the books and dupe the public into believing
that smoking is *bad* (ooooooooooo.. they're just mean old 'nannies') is
the height of idiocy. And *that's* where I draw the line.
Further, skeptics who attempt to convince others based on faulty, simplistic
logic -- without understanding fundamental principles of epidemiology --
also irritate me to no end ;) Sue me. :)
Beachhouse
>if
> there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health, would
> it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
> The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
> genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
> smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn meat on
> charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
> concerned, yes sirree....
>
I remember the days of the ludicrous "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections on
aircraft... all the nauseating smoke would simply drift forward into the
cabin.... your so-called "filtration" systems didn't do a damn bit of good.
It was miserable.
Further, I remember having to sit in restaurants and smell some idiot's
rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal. Non-smoking
restaurants are a BLESSING.
Beachhouse
> >
> Ah, but nobody claims that 85% of the people who are diagnosed with lung
cancer
> are current smokers at the time of diagnosis!
What matters is the # of pack-years (i.e. the number of packs of cigarettes
smoked per day x the # years of smoking). Being an ex-smoker is not the
same as being a non-smoker.
> A 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, conducted at Brigham and Women's
Hospital in
> Boston revealed that 59% of the patients were NOT smokers at the time of
> diagnosis. Of these, 8% of the sample had never smoked; 51% had smoked at
one
> time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, fully one fourth had
been off
> cigarettes for at least 20 years.
What about the other 41%?
Sounds like 8% were non smokers... 51% had some degree of exposure to
smoking (do we know the number of pack/years of exposure?).. and 41% were
current smokers.
What's your point?
CBI
>
> I'm more than happy to patiently debate truly controversial topics -- but
> stubbornly clinging to the belief that there is some "anti-smoking" cabal
> which has conspired to "cook" the books and dupe the public into believing
> that smoking is *bad* (ooooooooooo.. they're just mean old 'nannies') is
> the height of idiocy. And *that's* where I draw the line.
>
> Further, skeptics who attempt to convince others based on faulty,
simplistic
> logic -- without understanding fundamental principles of epidemiology --
> also irritate me to no end ;) Sue me. :)
>
Here, here. My feeling exactly.
--
CBI, MD
Robert Woodburn
"Jeffrey Peter, M.D." wrote:
> Yeah, except only 1/3 of people in this country smoke. So if 85% of all
> people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what is your
> conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate proportion of
> lung cancer caused by smoking.
*THIS* sort of tripe is why I still READ Anti postings - so that I can ignore
the drivel by not replying to it, while refuting the LIES.
First: The statistical data show that quite a bit less than a third (between 25%
and 30%) of the populace are smokers.
Second: What is YOUR conclusion as to the causation of the 15% of all lung
cancer where smoking is EXCLUDED from being possible causation?
> BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused by
> smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
>
This is an out and out lie, contradicted by facts found in a judicial decision
(the Osteen case) and the most recent study by the World Health Organization.
Ok...ready to resume my *plonking* again, while reserving the right to preserve
the truth wherever and whenever I find it being raped.
>
> Jeff Utz
>
> "Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
> news:3ac71c17...@news4.newscene.com...
> > J Wootton <jwoo...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Seems simple enough. If the person was a smoker and worked in XXXXX, the
> cause was
> > >smoking.
> > >If they weren't a smoker... "cause unknown"?
> >
> > That's pretty much it.
> >
> > My mother died of lung cancer at age 45. She didn't smoke. The cause
> > of death was listed as cancer. Listing smoking as the cause of her
> > death would have been stupid and inaccurate.
> >
> > If she was a smoker, and had died on the exact same day at the exact
> > same time, what do you suppose would have been listed as the cause of
> > death? And would it have been any smarter, or more accurate?
> >
> >
Dave Hitt
>There's no doubt that (fortunately) the overall prevalence of smoking among
>adults in the united states (as a whole) is less than it was in the 1960's.
>It remains high among minorities, lower socioeconomic groups, and in certain
>geographic locales -- for example, Kentucky, which is a state that has
>particularly high tobacco abuse.
Abuse? What are they, like, shoving it up their butts? Making
indecent proposals toward it? What, exactly, constitutes abuse?
>To understand *your* question, you must learn about incidence and
>prevalence rates --as well as understand the overall epidemiology and
>pathogenesis of lung cancer itself. Basically, the points I made earlier
>are the key ones.
Yes, you and your buddy CBI have already revealed how completely
ignorant you are on this subject just a short time ago.
BTW, are you aware that your stupidity is being discussed over on the
junk science site? It was so bizarre it attracted the attention of
real experts, people who know what they're talking about. They found
your ignorance quite amusing. You might want to stop by and get an
education.
Curly++
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:47:57 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
><kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Can you support with contention with facts?
>
>Yes, I can. I will cite one specific example below. First let me
>explain that my main research is in Crohn's disease, I am not a doctor
>nor do I have formal scientific training. What I do posses is a strong
>mind and a vested interest in my research. (I have CD) I should also
>state I am not anti-milk or meat.
Mike, I know I'm not having a good day today, but surely I would have
noticed a cite? Even just the name and location of the study?
Preferably a URL if you have one?
--
Oisin "Curly++" Curtin http://pages.infinit.net/curlypp/
"Life is a non-renewable resource, use it well." ocu...@usa.net
oligo 3, szr 6/1/2k, biopsy 6/19/2k, rad 30 8/24/2k-10/11/2k, stable!
Robert Woodburn
"Alex W." wrote:
> CBI <replyto...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:99lq5g$5p3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > Bottom line: smoking and second hand smoke causes lung cancer, many
> other
> > types of cancer, and heart disease as well as other problems. Everyone
> > credible knows it. It has been proven to the point of certainty.
>
> Pretend you are speaking to a four year old and tell me how you can prove
> anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics, that the
> sun will rise tomorrow morning.
>
> Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
> oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
> contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms of
> cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause cancer"
> because that would imply that every smoker will always contract cancer.
Further, it would imply that the "never smoker" cannot and will not contract
those forms of cancer for which smoking is the sole de facto cause.
Curly++
>"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>Further, I remember having to sit in restaurants and smell some idiot's
>rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal. Non-smoking
>restaurants are a BLESSING.
Ever used the Metro (underground trains) in Montreal? You exit on
escalators that must be three stories long. You get wedged in above and
below, moving is impossible. There are no-smoking signs hanging over
your head. Then someone ahead flicks his bick and blows a wad of smoke
in everyone's face. Try it with asmatic sinuses. How long can YOU hold
your breath?
Steph
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
Classy Dave.
Congratulations.
Smoke away
From me, preferably
Billy Goat Gruff III
give a dang reference. I should have put show.. whoops..
To make it easy goto http://www.mad-cow.org/00/paraTB.html
He cites (really this time I promise) sources at the bottom of the
page. The area you are looking is "USDA Farce?". It would be good to
read the whole thing as it has some interesting info in it.
Mike
All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted.
Copyright ©2001 Michael Cummings All Rights Reserved
=================================
Leah's Body Sugaring Recipe
Remove unwanted hair
http://www.for-romance.com/sugar
==================================
For the Billy Goat Gruff song visit
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm
Note: This page is not owned by me
Alex W.
>
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >if
> > there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health,
would
> > it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
> > The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
> > genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
> > smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn
meat on
> > charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
> > concerned, yes sirree....
> >
>
> I remember the days of the ludicrous "smoking" and "non-smoking"
sections on
> aircraft... all the nauseating smoke would simply drift forward into
the
> cabin.... your so-called "filtration" systems didn't do a damn bit of
good.
> It was miserable.
Well, guess what -- they have cut back on that filtration by two thirds.
Doesn't that make you feel good?
Cabin staff have threatened strikes because the air has become so bad.
>
> Further, I remember having to sit in restaurants and smell some idiot's
> rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal.
Non-smoking
> restaurants are a BLESSING.
They may be a blessing for your aesthetic wellbeing but they do sweet FA
for the air quality you have to breathe.
Basically, what your above comment says is that as long as you find the
smell pleasing, they could pump any old shit into the air and you won't
mind.
Bon appetit.....
Lauren A. Colby
for different age groups, for the time period 1970 through 1990. Since the
figures are divided into rates/100,000 population in different age groups, they
are automatically age adjusted.
Larry
Marky
Speaking of airlines...what about those thousands of deaths caused by blood
clotting...and all that radiation must have caused more than a few cancer
cases...
But still nothing compared to the damage done by medical x-rays...
A real blessing would be for the medicos to stop blasting people with
radiation...I'm sure they could do without the kickbacks from the clinics...
Beachhouse
> Here, here. My feeling exactly.
>
> --
> CBI, MD
the joys of USENET ;)
Lauren A. Colby
>
>
>"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:99lkc...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>> No, I do not get your drift.
>
>That's pretty obvious. It's just not as simple as you'd like to believe it
>is.
>
>>
>> The Merck Manual tells us that "On the average, patients with untreated
>> bronchogenic carcinoma survive 9 months. Only about 25% of the tumors are
>> resectable and the 5 year survival rate for the TOTAL group is <10%"
>[emphasis
>> supplied]. Thus, while there are undoubtably a few lung cancer survivors
>who
>> hang on for years (I knew one woman who lived 15 years), they are so few
>in
>> number as to be statistically insignificant.
>>
>
>The data you post is just plain WRONG. We're talking about survival data
>for patients who are *treated*. Lumping survival rates for *all* stages
>together is meaningless -- even Stage II patients have up to a 40-50% 5-year
>survival. Anywhere from 5-30% of patients with Stage II disease can be
>alive after 5 years. are meaningless. Phrases like "statistically
>insignificant" are tossed around so often on USENET that it's obvious you
>have little understanding of what such a phrase *really* means. You just
>don't understand what you're talking about, sorry -- which makes it
>difficult to make this an interesting discussion. It's tedious, actually.
>
I gave you a source for my data. You give me nothing but your opinion. As for
the term "statistically significant", I would generally accept data with an odds
ratio of 2:1 or better at a confidence factor of 95% as "statistically
significant".
No! By static rate, I mean the rate at any one point in time. It's meaningless.
What is meaningful is the rate of change over a period of time. In Kentucky as
in everywhere else, the rate of change in smoking prevalence since 1961 has been
negative, at a time when the rate of change in the LCDR was positive.
As for "epidemiologic" v. "epidemiological", my copy of Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary says that the correct term is "epidemiological", meaning "Pertaining
to epidemiology". It doesn't even contain an entry for "epidemiologic".
>
>
>> I've seen the smoking prevalence figures for Kentucky and they are a
>> little higher than in the nation as a whole because they were always a
>little
>> higher.
>
>? what, exactly, does this sentence mean? You may want to re-read it.
It simply means that in 1961, when smoking rates peaked, the rate in Kentucky
was higher than the national rate. Therefore, a decline of X% in smoking
prevalence in Kentucky still leaves that State with a higher rate than the
national rate.
>
>
>> But in Kentucky, as elsewhere, the issue is simply the rate of change.
>> LCDR's have been going up while smoking declined.
>
>That's not what was reported in that article. We don't know *what* rates
>were actually described, but they don't appear to be *case fatality* rates.
>Further, we don't have any data on whether the prevalence of smoking in
>Kentucky mirrors the national average. Further, we don't know the
>characteristics of the "cases" reported in that article. Further, as I
>tried to show you, lung cancer is not a single disease -- as you persist in
>simplistically believing.
>
>
>> If, as medical science
>> stubbornly insists, the disease is dose-related, this result is
>nonsensical.
>
>I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue here. It may not make sense to
>you, but it's the truth. Sorry. The number of years you smoke, and the
>number of packs per day is key.
Please engage brain before engaging keyboard and do a little THINKING. Try to
imagine a disease which is caused by drinking soda pop. We establish that
anybody who drinks 10,000 bottles of soda pop will eventually contract the
disease. Now, imagine a population of a million people of all ages, at a static
point in time. Some of them have already consumed 12,000 bottles and are already
doomed; others have consumed 9,999 bottles and can be saved, if they will only
refrain from consuming one more bottle. At this point in time, the Surgeon
General intervenes and warns against the dangers of drinking soda pop.
Immediately, half the soda pop drinkers quit. Logic says that in the following
time period we should see an immediate decline in the number of cases of the
disease, resulting from some number of people not drinking that 10,000th bottle.
>
>> Beginning in 1961, Americans began quitting in smoking in droves and at
>all
>> ages.
>
>Nope. sorry.. the CDC estimates on smoking you refer to include only
>*adults* (not all ages). It's difficult to collect data on smoking among
>minors; but the overall trend is increasing -- especially among teenage
>*girls.* Further, while adult smoking rates have declined over 40 years,
>they still remain high in a number of specific groups (as I pointed out to
>you earlier). The vast majority ( 80%) of lung cancer cases *are* directly
>attributable to smoking -- whether or not you choose to believe that. And,
>recent data actually suggests that lung cancer cases in the U.S. *are*
>declining -- prostate cancer has now taken the lead among males. Maybe,
>hopefully, we're already seeing the impact on decreased smoking among
>adults. Hey, it's your life -- best of luck. And if you're in the habit of
>inhaling radon, sniffing asbestos, or mining uranium -- you may wish to
>rethink your career choice.
>
The CDC figures are for persons 18 years of age and older. According to the
Statistical Abstract of the United States, the age group with the largest lung
cancer death rate per 100,000 men in that age group is the group 85 and older.
For men, the LCDR in that age group increased from 215.3 in 1970 to 538.0 in
1990. I doubt very much that you know many 14 year olds who are inveterate
smokers - they couldn't be inveterate smokers because they spend most of their
day in school, where smoking is not allowed, and has never been allowed in
class. But let's assume, solely arguendo, that the CDC figures are flawed
because they fail to take into account millions of kids, 14 years of age or
older, who were smoking.
The time period from age 14 to age 18 is 4 years. That's 4.7% of the lifetime of
an 85 year old man who develops lung cancer. The adult figures show a steady and
sharp decline in smoking rates from 1961 to 1990. A man, 85 years of age in
1990, would have been 56 years old in 1961. If, as all the figures indicate,
vast numbers of men in their 50's quit in 1961 and failed to smoke that last
fatal cigarette, the LCDR among the group 85 and older should have declined,
sharply, between 1961 and 1990. Instead, it more than doubled.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
>
>>
>>> the ACS began inventing new and ever-longer
>>> "incubation periods" for lung cancer.
>>>
>>> The smoker might as well keep
>>> puffing away, since he is damned to a death from lung cancer, whether he
>>quits
>>> or not!
>>
>>My point was only to comment on how erroneous your assumptions were based on
>>a specific newspaper article reporting "rates" of cancer in Kentucky.
>>Also, I wanted to point out how important it is to dig a bit deeper to
>>uncover the truth about what's reported in media articles related to public
>>health/medicine. It's sad if you base your own personal decision to
>>continue smoking upon faulty logic; i.e. that it's futile to quit, because
>>you've already been "exposed." I can't convince you that the ACS doesn't
>>"invent" data, so I won't even try. We're entering "black helicopter"
>>territory now...
>>
helicopter argument!
I'm not accusing the ACS of inventing any data. I AM accusing them of inventing
a theory - a Ptolemaic epicycle - to explain away flaws in their data.
Let's look at my hypothetical example from my previous post: Try to
imagine a disease which is caused by drinking soda pop. We establish that
anybody who drinks 10,000 bottles of soda pop will eventually contract the
disease. Now, imagine a population of a million people of all ages, at a static
point in time. Some of them have already consumed 12,000 bottles and are already
doomed; others have consumed 9,999 bottles and can be saved, if they will only
refrain from consuming one more bottle. At this point in time, the Surgeon
General intervenes and warns against the dangers of drinking soda pop.
Immediately, half the soda pop drinkers quit. Logic says that in the following
time period we should see an immediate decline in the number of cases of the
disease, resulting from some number of people not drinking that 10,000th bottle.
Now, let's assume that some people in our hypothetical have already consumed
20,000 bottles of soda pop before they hear the Surgeon General's warning. If
the disease is universally fatal, they should all be dead. In fact, they should
have died shortly after consuming the 10,000th bottle. But for some reason, the
death rate from soda pop disease continues to climb, even as vast numbers of
people quit drinking the fatal pop. To an unbiased observer, this would suggest
that maybe consuming soda pop doesn't cause the disease, after all: that the
Surgeon General is wrong.
But the Surgeon General is not about to admit that he's wrong. Instead, he
invents a Ptolemaic epicycle to explain the apparent contradiction between the
reduced consumption of soda pop and the climbing death rate from pop disease:
the incubation period. He decides that it takes 30 years for the disease to
develop.
The problem here is that, like any Ptolemaic epicycle, the incubation period
theory is inconsistent with the original dose rate theory. It assumes that there
is no relationship between the number of bottles consumed and the age of
incidence of soda pop disease. A person who consumes 40,000 bottles won't die
any earlier than a person who consumes only 10,001.
Here, the pack year theory of cigarette smoking and lung cancer dictates that
somebody who has smoked 3,650 pack years (365 packs/year for ten years) will
contract lung cancer sooner than somebody who has smoked 1,000 pack years, and
has yet to smoke the additional 2,650 pack years. If so, logic tells us that as
soon as the smoking rate starts declining, the rate of lung cancer will also
start to decline. But it didn't.
Get my drift?
Larry
Beachhouse
> >>
> >
> >The data you post is just plain WRONG. We're talking about survival
data
> >for patients who are *treated*. Lumping survival rates for *all* stages
> >together is meaningless -- even Stage II patients have up to a 40-50%
5-year
> >survival. Anywhere from 5-30% of patients with Stage II disease can be
> >alive after 5 years. are meaningless. Phrases like "statistically
> >insignificant" are tossed around so often on USENET that it's obvious you
> >have little understanding of what such a phrase *really* means. You just
> >don't understand what you're talking about, sorry -- which makes it
> >difficult to make this an interesting discussion. It's tedious,
actually.
> >
>
> I gave you a source for my data. You give me nothing but your opinion. As
for
> the term "statistically significant", I would generally accept data with
an odds
> ratio of 2:1 or better at a confidence factor of 95% as "statistically
> significant".
>
The Merck Manual is hardly an authoritative source ;)
You glossed over an entire paragraph regarding the epidemiology of lung
cancer; data can be found in any oncology text. The one I happened to cite
from was:
"Abeloff: Clinical Oncology, 2nd Ed. Churchill Livingstone, Inc.
Copyright © 2000"
relevant pages; 1410-1411.
>
> No! By static rate, I mean the rate at any one point in time. It's
meaningless.
You're referring now to "point prevalence" which is hardly meaningless.
> What is meaningful is the rate of change over a period of time. In
Kentucky as
> in everywhere else, the rate of change in smoking prevalence since 1961
has been
> negative, at a time when the rate of change in the LCDR was positive.
You've snuck in references to "death rates" when what we *think* the article
was referring to were incidence or prevalence rates for lung cancer -- not
mortality data.
See how impossible it is to argue based upon a data set that you haven't
seen?
It's ridiculous.
>
> As for "epidemiologic" v. "epidemiological", my copy of Webster's
Unabridged
> Dictionary says that the correct term is "epidemiological", meaning
"Pertaining
> to epidemiology". It doesn't even contain an entry for "epidemiologic".
>
> >
Well, fortunately, we don't practice medicine (or epidemiology) by looking
up words in Webster's. Try any textbook of epidemiology -- or read a paper.
> >
> >> I've seen the smoking prevalence figures for Kentucky and they are a
> >> little higher than in the nation as a whole because they were always a
> >little
> >> higher.
> >
> >? what, exactly, does this sentence mean? You may want to re-read it.
>
> It simply means that in 1961, when smoking rates peaked, the rate in
Kentucky
> was higher than the national rate. Therefore, a decline of X% in smoking
> prevalence in Kentucky still leaves that State with a higher rate than the
> national rate.
>
Which is important to public health officials (obviously) in targetting
anti-smoking efforts .. especially if Kentucky continues to have a high rate
of lung cancer cases.
Let's stick to the specific article, please. We can go off on all kinds of
tangents.
My *ONLY* interest in this thread is pointing out how individuals mis-read
newspaper articles, misquote data, toss around jargon, and don't take the
time to *think* about what's missing :)
Once we start debating your personal theories/ideas about what's "logical",
it becomes pretty pointless.
You've slipped back into providing death rates again. We're interested in
the incidence of smoking behavior and in the incidence of lung cancer
itself. You're mixing up rates & terminology again.
> The time period from age 14 to age 18 is 4 years. That's 4.7% of the
lifetime of
> an 85 year old man who develops lung cancer. The adult figures show a
steady and
> sharp decline in smoking rates from 1961 to 1990. A man, 85 years of age
in
> 1990, would have been 56 years old in 1961. If, as all the figures
indicate,
> vast numbers of men in their 50's quit in 1961 and failed to smoke that
last
> fatal cigarette,
there is no "last fatal cigarette"
>
>the LCDR among the group 85 and older should have declined,
> sharply, between 1961 and 1990. Instead, it more than doubled.
>
>
Did you bother to read *anything* above?
Honestly, please take a class or talk to a physician about these issues.
You are very confused.
Beachhouse
> snipped
> Now, let's assume that some people in our hypothetical have already
consumed
> 20,000 bottles of soda pop before they hear the Surgeon General's warning.
If
> the disease is universally fatal, they should all be dead. In fact, they
should
> have died shortly after consuming the 10,000th bottle. But for some
reason, the
> death rate from soda pop disease continues to climb, even as vast numbers
of
> people quit drinking the fatal pop. To an unbiased observer, this would
suggest
> that maybe consuming soda pop doesn't cause the disease, after all: that
the
> Surgeon General is wrong.
- lung cancer cases are declining (thankfully).
- survival from lung cancer is variable, depending upon the histologic grade
& stage within which it is diagnosed.
- we need a better screening strategy
- we need better treatment options
- there are a variety of histologic types of lung cancer - some of which are
more closely associated with cigarette smoking than others. others have a
close association with other, occupational exposures.
- the 'surgeon general' (backed up by the CDC, etc. etc. etc.) isn't wrong.
- if you wish to continue smoking, that's *your* choice; but it's a poor
one.
Your assumptions are interesting, but incorrect. I wish it were all so
simple and logical, but, unfortunately, it isn't. Lung cancer rates *are*
declining however. Note that i said nothing about DEATH rates -- we're back
to understanding incidence, prevalence, mortality, and other forms of rates.
See earlier comments in detail.
> Get my drift?
>
I think you're still confused.
Beachhouse
> >The data you post is just plain WRONG. We're talking about survival
data
> >for patients who are *treated*. Lumping survival rates for *all* stages
> >together is meaningless -- even Stage II patients have up to a 40-50%
5-year
> >survival. Anywhere from 5-30% of patients with Stage II disease can be
> >alive after 5 years. are meaningless. Phrases like "statistically
> >insignificant" are tossed around so often on USENET that it's obvious you
> >have little understanding of what such a phrase *really* means. You just
> >don't understand what you're talking about, sorry -- which makes it
> >difficult to make this an interesting discussion. It's tedious,
actually.
> >
>
> I gave you a source for my data. You give me nothing but your opinion. As
for
> the term "statistically significant", I would generally accept data with
an odds
> ratio of 2:1 or better at a confidence factor of 95% as "statistically
> significant".
You prove my point EXACTLY. And I don't mean to pick on you, but I will --
because I think it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of
epidemiology.
Data with an odds ratio of 2:1 or better MAY or MAY NOT be statistically
significant. An odds ratio, by itself, tells you *nothing* about
*statistical* significance.
Lauren A. Colby
the cause of a disease and you eliminate the disease. That's a very basic
concept which even you should be able to understand and comprehend.
In the case of lung cancer, the cause was attributed to lung cancer as early as
1961, and smoking prevalences began a prolonged and sharp decline. That's
established by CDC figures, as well as by many other smoking surveys taken over
the years. At the same time, however, lung cancer death rates (LCDR's) shot
skyward, in both sexes. That's established by official figures published in the
Statistical Abstract of the United States and republished in my book, available
on my web site.
So you have a contradiction. That contradiction isn't something we whackos made
up. It's demonstrated by credible figures from credible sources.
Larry
Steph
>
> I find it interesting that the medical authorities have no idea what
causes
> prostate cancer, breast cancer or colo-rectai cancer (being reduced to
listing
> "risk factors") - yet, they purport to know exactly what causes lung
cancer. I
> suggest that if an objective scientist were to come down from Mars and
begin
> studying the causes of human cancer, he would begin by looking for a
cause,
> common to all types of cancer or at least, all types which manifest
themselves
> in the form of uncontrollable tumors. It isn't likely that he would begin
by
> looking for different causes for tumors which have essentially the same
> characteristics and are differentiated only by their sites within the
body.
>
If you think that "all types of cancer" are the same disease, you are
mistaken.
Cancer is a group of diseases like "infections". Do you believe that the
cause of the common cold and the cause of bubonic plague are the same? Or
that the treatment is the same?
> If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking,
why
> has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of
time
> when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
> females by more than a third?
>
> Larry
Because there is a latent period involved.
If smoking rates continue to decline, lung cancer rates will also decline,
but the two graphs will be out of synch by 10-15 years.
Beachhouse
> the years. At the same time, however, lung cancer death rates (LCDR's)
shot
> skyward, in both sexes. That's established by official figures published
in the
> Statistical Abstract of the United States and republished in my book,
available
> on my web site.
you've made this same statement, repeatedly.
death rates (mortality data) do not equal incidence/prevalence (morbidity
data) rates.
getting back to the original article -- on Kentucky -- we weren't given
enough detail from the newspaper to conclude anything at all. But you
clearly err when you generalize that lung cancer is a uniformly fatal
diagnosis, and you err further when you confuse morbidity with mortality.
now, i know you are a libertarian and you feel passionately about this
issue. maybe there's some other issue in science we can agree on. :)
Steph
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics, that the
> sun will rise tomorrow morning.
>
I expect you expect the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
> Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
> oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
> contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms of
> cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause cancer"
> because that would imply that every smoker will always contract cancer.
>
It's a lottery, true. Some smokers don't get lung cancer or heart disease or
atherosclerosis or emphysema. But smoking stacks the deck against you. If
you smoke, you are much more likely to get lung cancer and these other
diseases, if you don't smoke, it is much less likely.
Saying that smoking causes cancer does not mean that every smoker will get
cancer. There is a random element in the causality.
David Chamberlain
>
> BTW, are you aware that your stupidity is being discussed over on the
> junk science site? It was so bizarre it attracted the attention of
> real experts, people who know what they're talking about. They found
> your ignorance quite amusing. You might want to stop by and get an
> education.
>
Can you give us a link to this? I'm curious.
David C
Robert Woodburn
Kyoteee wrote:
> "Beachhouse" <sendn...@please.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> >
> >> Ah, but nobody claims that 85% of the people who are diagnosed with lung
> >cancer
> >> are current smokers at the time of diagnosis!
> >
> >What matters is the # of pack-years (i.e. the number of packs of cigarettes
> >smoked per day x the # years of smoking).
>
> <snicker> There is no such thing as 'pack years', it's a silly,
> meaningless term created by HealthNazis to make their lies sound scary
> and credible. It has the opposite effect on thinking, intelligent
> people.
I'm glad to use their term, Kyotee. 6 cigarettes per year over 20 years = 6 pack
years - a low enough figure that even the INSURANCE INDUSTRY considers you a
nonsmoker.
> > Being an ex-smoker is not the same as being a non-smoker.
>
> Smokers and non-smokers know that all too well. Most AuntieNazis are
> ex-smokers who sincerely believe that since they don't smoke any more,
> they're allowed to lump themselves in with the never-smoker crowd.
> Further silliness.
>
> >> A 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, conducted at Brigham and Women's
> >Hospital in
> >> Boston revealed that 59% of the patients were NOT smokers at the time of
> >> diagnosis. Of these, 8% of the sample had never smoked; 51% had smoked at
> >one
> >> time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, fully one fourth had
> >been off
> >> cigarettes for at least 20 years.
> >
> >What about the other 41%?
> >Sounds like 8% were non smokers... 51% had some degree of exposure to
> >smoking (do we know the number of pack/years of exposure?).. and 41% were
> >current smokers.
>
> What does "some degree of exposure to smoking" mean? (We already know
> that "pack-years" is meaningless.) Sounds like you're claiming that
> if a person had tried cigarettes ONCE in his life, then he should be
> considered an "ex-smoker" for the purposes of manipulating (i.e.,
> lying) statistical data.
That's the usual position of the Anti crowd, Kyoteee. And it's as errant as "pack
year", but if they want to look silly by manipulating data, the least we as
seekers of truth can do is to point out how silly their manipulation is - so long
as it leads down the road to truth. Truth is our ally and the Antis' enemy.
> >What's your point?
>
> That you'll go to any lengths to avoid considering *facts* (e.g., as
> proven to you by Larry Colby and Dave Hitt, so far) in your zealous
> determination to make smoking seem dangerous.
Even Bruce Watson has found the guts to say ETS isn't dangerous. If he can quit
that lie, anyone can...
But then, most Antis are in denial that their ETS hysterical hype has been a lie
from day one.
Billy Goat Gruff III
Mike
All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted.
rumik
> "Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:99nk...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> > snipped
>
> > Now, let's assume that some people in our hypothetical have already
> consumed
> > 20,000 bottles of soda pop before they hear the Surgeon General's warning.
> If
> > the disease is universally fatal, they should all be dead. In fact, they
> should
> > have died shortly after consuming the 10,000th bottle. But for some
> reason, the
> > death rate from soda pop disease continues to climb, even as vast numbers
> of
> > people quit drinking the fatal pop. To an unbiased observer, this would
> suggest
> > that maybe consuming soda pop doesn't cause the disease, after all: that
> the
> > Surgeon General is wrong.
>
> - lung cancer cases are declining (thankfully).
Depends on who you prefer to believe.
Most "authorities" say it's on the increase.
Only the anti-smoking lobby insists that
it's on the decline.
Lauren A. Colby
Beachhouse, I HAVE seen the data set that I rely upon. I'm not talking about the
article (which I never posted). I'm talking about the state by state smoking
prevalence surveys which have been taken over the years by the CDC and other
private groups and the LCDR's published in the Statistical Abstract of the
United States. In doing a statistical analysis, equating death rates with
incidence rates doesn't introduce any significant errors because the survival
time is so short. The source that you belatedly cite does not rebut this. You
say that 5 to 30% of Stage II patients "can" be alive at the end of five years.
Which is it, 5 or 30? And does "can" mean "will"?
>
>
>>
>> As for "epidemiologic" v. "epidemiological", my copy of Webster's
>Unabridged
>> Dictionary says that the correct term is "epidemiological", meaning
>"Pertaining
>> to epidemiology". It doesn't even contain an entry for "epidemiologic".
>>
>> >
>
>Well, fortunately, we don't practice medicine (or epidemiology) by looking
>up words in Webster's. Try any textbook of epidemiology -- or read a paper.
>
Picking up one such paper which I have, by a distinguished epidemiologist, Dr.
P.D. Oldham, of Llandough Hospital, in England, I read the following sentence:
"There is nothing wrong with this method of formulating hypotheses, but too
often the authors of such studies succeed in implying that a tenable hypothesis,
developed from a careful epidemiological survey, is a proven one".
The late Prof. P.R.J. Burch was one of the most prominent epidemiologists of his
time (he died, despite being a life long never smoker). I have an entire
collection of his papers. He never uses the word "epidemiologic". I won't go so
far as to say that you made it up and got caught, but I will say that
dictionaries are the authoritative works on the spelling and meaning of words,
and the dictionary's on my side.
Hold on! I didn't post the article. Somebody else did. I then proceeded to point
out that lung cancer increased rapidly over the same time period that smoking
declined, drastically. You then posted your belief that lung cancer bears a dose
relationship to smoking and I pointed out that if the dose relationship held
true, a decline in the rate of smoking should be associated with a decline in
lung cancer (which didn't happen). I can see why you'd like to change the
subject, but it's too late - you've already crossed the Rubicon.
No, I'm not. As I pointed out to you earlier, citing the Merck Manual (which you
have not successfully rebutted), the 5 year survival rate for ALL lung cancer
cases is <10%. Hence, equating incidence rates with death rates does not lead to
any important statistical errors, except, possibly with the very young age
groups, where there have apparently been some improvements in the survival rates
- although the numbers of cases in these very young groups are very small
compared to those occuring after the age of 55.
>
>> The time period from age 14 to age 18 is 4 years. That's 4.7% of the
>lifetime of
>> an 85 year old man who develops lung cancer. The adult figures show a
>steady and
>> sharp decline in smoking rates from 1961 to 1990. A man, 85 years of age
>in
>> 1990, would have been 56 years old in 1961. If, as all the figures
>indicate,
>> vast numbers of men in their 50's quit in 1961 and failed to smoke that
>last
>> fatal cigarette,
>
>there is no "last fatal cigarette"
>
>
OK, let's assume that there's no threshold - just a linear relationship with the
dose related to the risk of getting the disease and the age of onset. Even so,
the dose relationship theory REQUIRES you to assume that the more pack years
smoked, the earlier the onset of the disease and the greater the likelihood that
it will appear at all. Starting in 1961, the rate of smoking in American men
began a precipitous decline. Never-the-less, the LCDR's increased in all
significant age groups (55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+) during the time period
1970-1990. Same for women. In fact, for women, the LCDR's increased even more
rapidly.
>
>>the LCDR among the group 85 and older should have declined,
>> sharply, between 1961 and 1990. Instead, it more than doubled.
>>
>>
>
>Did you bother to read *anything* above?
>Honestly, please take a class or talk to a physician about these issues.
>You are very confused.
>
I will leave it to our readers to determine who is confused.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
some. But I stand by my position that the use of death rate figures is entirely
valid and indeed, conservative, to show the effects of quitting smoking on the
incidence of lung cancer, given the low survival rate for this disease. If large
numbers of lung cancer victims survived for ten years or so, we might have a
high prevalence rate (people suffering from the disease), even at a time when
the incidence rate was declining. But this would also tend to lower the death
rate, wouldn't it? So I think the use of LCDR's is a good marker for the overall
rate of increase or decrease of the disease.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
>- lung cancer cases are declining (thankfully).
I would expect to see some slight decrease in LCDR's as a result of detection
bias. When a patient develops lung tumors and is a smoker, the physician is
likely to immediately diagnose primary lung cancer. When a patient is a
non-smoker and develops lung tumors, the physician is likely to make a greater
effort to determine whether the cancer originally developed at another site and
merely metastasized to the lungs. These days, fewer and fewer people are
smokers. Also, cat scans, etc., make it easier to differentiate between primary
and secondary lung cancer.
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
>> I gave you a source for my data. You give me nothing but your opinion. As
>for
>> the term "statistically significant", I would generally accept data with
>an odds
>> ratio of 2:1 or better at a confidence factor of 95% as "statistically
>> significant".
>
>You prove my point EXACTLY. And I don't mean to pick on you, but I will --
>because I think it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of
>epidemiology.
>
>Data with an odds ratio of 2:1 or better MAY or MAY NOT be statistically
>significant. An odds ratio, by itself, tells you *nothing* about
>*statistical* significance.
>
>
applied by many scientific journals, for publication.
Larry
Alex W.
> >
> >
> > Let's see now...
> > Say a scientist finishes a study which suggests an increased risk of
> > impotence by smokers by 13%, complete with all the relevant figures
such
> > as sample size, confidence intervals, RR and God knows what else.
Say
> > that it is a genuinely independent study, conducted with impeccable
> > scientific rigour. What happens now? A group like ASH picks up on
it
> > and publicises the result, in all probability leaving out all those
> > important but confusing details like confounders or control group
size.
> > They tell their story to educationally average journalists who are in
all
> > probability incapable of following a complex statistical argument to
save
> > their lives, and who are furthermore required to put this information
> > into easily digestable form for their readers, complete with
eye-catching
> > headline. The result: a study suggesting a possible connection
between
> > smoking and impotence is reduced to two columns in the morning paper
with
> > a headline screaming that "SMOKING CAUSES IMPOTENCE". Is that the
truth?
> > Never mind truth, is that factually correct? No, it isn't, and your
> > above post tells me you would agree with me on this.
> >
> > So can you accept that with all this triply predigested misleading
pap
> > being thrown at us we have become extremely reluctant to take
anything at
> > face value? That we have become very sceptical indeed of any
scientific
> > study that comes along? That we have massive problems indeed with
> > anything that has passed through the hands of confirmed and
> > self-confessed anti-smokers? And all that before we even start to
get to
> > grips with highly complex issues full of inconclusive, inconsistent
and
> > sometimes contradictory evidence......
> >
> > Alex W
> >
>
> Your post is extremely reasonable.. and I can completely sympathize
with
> your point of view. You are sophisticated enough to realize that
you're
> getting overly simplified reporting of science and medicine from the
mass
> media -- and you're skeptical enough to want to know more. That's
fine.
> There are many causes for this problem, though. Our kids get a crappy
> education in science, the reporters who write this stuff often don't
> understand it themselves, and the few media outlets that *do* report
> responsibly on science (e.g. Scientific American, PBS, etc.) just don't
> command the ratings that "Entertainment Tonight" and "USA Today" do.
Add
> to that physicians who may also have problems critically appraising the
> literature (or finding the time to do so... or finding the time to
explain
> it in detail to skeptical patients) and you have a major problem which
> impacts on the quality of medicine and science in this country. You
see
> stories constantly being reported on with conflicting
conclusions/results
> and you're bound to throw up your hands and say, "all this stuff is
just
> garbage."
>
> I'm more than happy to patiently debate truly controversial topics --
but
> stubbornly clinging to the belief that there is some "anti-smoking"
cabal
> which has conspired to "cook" the books and dupe the public into
believing
> that smoking is *bad* (ooooooooooo.. they're just mean old 'nannies')
is
> the height of idiocy. And *that's* where I draw the line.
>
> Further, skeptics who attempt to convince others based on faulty,
simplistic
> logic -- without understanding fundamental principles of
epidemiology --
> also irritate me to no end ;) Sue me. :)
Have you met my lawyer yet -- Aloysius X.Tort from Robbe, Blind and
Steele?
I am not a conspiracy nut. I do not believe in black helicopters or
postmen on grassy knolls. And yes, Elvis did die with his trousers round
his ankles choking on his own vomit. What I am is a cynic; I have no
problem believing in human nature. This means that I do believe that
politicians and administrators are very happy with the current situation
of tobacco control and taxation because it gives them lots and lots of
power and revenue, all of it uncontroversial and even vote-getting. If,
hypothetically speaking, conclusive ironcast proof were to emerge that it
wasn't the tobacco but perhaps the paper which causes cancer and all we'd
need to do to cut lung cancer rates would be to switch to different
paper, the politicians would be extremely loath to accept this and act
accordingly. It would quite simply cost them too much.
Further, human nature is very comfortable with simple answers, regardless
of the complexity of the question. What is wanted is certainty, not
accurate information. This, I believe, accounts for a great deal of
reluctance to accurately report the level of equivocation and uncertainty
surrounding pretty much most studies. Thus the suggestion of a
possibility of an increase in risk is transmogrified into so-called
facts -- not by a conspiracy but by plain human nature.
The possible link between smoking and impotence, btw, was reported in the
British press pretty much as I described it, and not in the local
equivalent of USA Today but in the Times and other "quality" newspapers
from whom one would expect a higher standard of reporting.
Finally, I would add one more factor skewing the information that does
reach the public: to what degree any given issue has become politicised.
Smoking, for instance, has become part of the political platforms of most
if not all politicians and quite a few politically aware people. The
arguments
against unreasonable restrictions and bans, for example, are rooted
pretty much in a defence of the rights of the individual. On the other
side, anti-smokers claim an absolute right to clean air (whatever that
is). Tobacco lawyers, flush with cash from settlements with Big Tobacco,
have begun to lobby Washington on all manner of lucrative tort issues,
influencing the entire political and legislative process. The campaign
against tobacco is used as a blueprint for campaigns against all manner
of things -- guns, health care, insurance, cars, fatty foods, meat
products, you name it. Being the first and the farthest along, tobacco
has become a fairly emotive issue. That is not conducive at all to
dispassioante and impartial scientific enquiry.
Alex W
Hilander
> Further, human nature is very comfortable with simple answers, regardless
> of the complexity of the question. What is wanted is certainty, not
> accurate information.
reminds me of the old joke: 100% of people diagnosed with cancer had been to
see the doctor. Does that mean doctors cause cancer?
Alex W.
Steph <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:_1Lv6.141470$47.20...@news.bc.tac.net...
>
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
> > Pretend you are speaking to a four year old and tell me how you can
prove
> > anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics, that
the
> > sun will rise tomorrow morning.
> >
>
> I expect you expect the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
I expect it will.
I am confident it will.
I believe it will.
But can I prove it will, using statistics?
>
> > Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
> > oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
> > contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms
of
> > cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause
cancer"
> > because that would imply that every smoker will always contract
cancer.
> >
>
> It's a lottery, true. Some smokers don't get lung cancer or heart
disease or
> atherosclerosis or emphysema. But smoking stacks the deck against you.
If
> you smoke, you are much more likely to get lung cancer and these other
> diseases, if you don't smoke, it is much less likely.
> Saying that smoking causes cancer does not mean that every smoker will
get
> cancer. There is a random element in the causality.
>
Still, the implication is there. A great many people have trouble
putting together a complete sentence without "well...you know....
like....", let alone parse a statement like "Smoking causes cancer". If
you spoonfeed the public scientific and medical knowledge in soundbites,
it will eventually backfire. Bigtime.
Kevin Gavitt
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:_1Lv6.141470$47.20...@news.bc.tac.net...
>
In point of fact, saying that not every smoker will not get cancer is saying
that the vast majority, and I mean VAST majority, will not get cancer. About
98% of smokers will get lung cancer, compared to about 99% of non smokers.
The numbers don't look anywhere near as scary as saying that 80% of lung
cancer cases are smokers so it is rarely phrased in such a manner.
If ten people out of 100,000 get a particular disease and 8 of them are left
handed then left handed people are 4 times more likely to get the disease,
HOWEVER, the odds of a left hander getting the disease AT ALL are very
small, 1 in 12,500. This is 10 times SMALLER than the rate of incidence
for Western Europeans to suffer from CF.
Right handers odds of getting the disease are 1 in 500,000, which looks like
a much bigger and less scary number than 1 in 12,500.
It STILL all means that only 8 left handers in 100,000 will *likely* get the
disease, and being right handed is no garuntee that you won't get it.
And if you think that my example is a purely hypothetical one with no
biological plausibility chosen for rhetorical effect, a recent study shows
that having blue eyes increases one chance of deafness!
KFG
Robert Woodburn
Kevin Gavitt wrote:
> "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> news:_1Lv6.141470$47.20...@news.bc.tac.net...
> >
> > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
*snip*
> > >
> In point of fact, saying that not every smoker will not get cancer is saying
> that the vast majority, and I mean VAST majority, will not get cancer. About
> 98% of smokers will get lung cancer, compared to about 99% of non smokers.
>
I think the word "not" should appear before the word "get" in the last sentence
of the above paragraph. Twice.
>
> The numbers don't look anywhere near as scary as saying that 80% of lung
> cancer cases are smokers so it is rarely phrased in such a manner.
>
> If ten people out of 100,000 get a particular disease and 8 of them are left
> handed then left handed people are 4 times more likely to get the disease,
> HOWEVER, the odds of a left hander getting the disease AT ALL are very
> small, 1 in 12,500. This is 10 times SMALLER than the rate of incidence
> for Western Europeans to suffer from CF.
>
> Right handers odds of getting the disease are 1 in 500,000, which looks like
> a much bigger and less scary number than 1 in 12,500.
>
> It STILL all means that only 8 left handers in 100,000 will *likely* get the
> disease, and being right handed is no garuntee that you won't get it.
>
> And if you think that my example is a purely hypothetical one with no
> biological plausibility chosen for rhetorical effect, a recent study shows
> that having blue eyes increases one chance of deafness!
>
> KFG
Could you repeat that, Kevin? As Strom Thurmond might say on my behalf: "I
cain't heah ya!"
- Bobby with the Big Blue Eyes...
Dave Hitt
>But this is precisely the point. Some people have the intelligence of four
>year olds, and smoke because their brains cannot understand statistics.
>The good news is that such stupid individuals have a higher rate of
>death due to smoking related diseases, thereby vacating the gene pool
>for people with better brains and genes, such as myself. Granted, most
>of smokers die after menopause, but some die before and are unable to
>leave offspring due to their stupidity and recalcitrance.
Of course, what you see as stupidity is often simply someone willingly
and knowingly deciding to trade pleasure for longevity. (Or, to be
more accurate, to take a know risk that that might happen.)
>Another advantage of having smokers around is that they, like myself,
>contribute to Social Security, however due to their smoking habit and
>relatively smaller life expectancy they will not use it as much as
>nonsmokers. Therefore smokers subsidise my retirement.
Very good. Now if all nannies could come to understand that, they
could stop spewing the lie that smokers cost society money, when, in
fact, they save society money in two ways - some of them die earlier,
and most of them pay outrageous taxes.
>I am, therefore, fully supportive of their right to smoke, and am against
>most anti-tobacco regulations, lawsuits etc.
>
>I am generally rather amused by the stupidity of "tobacco lawsuits".
>What they are, basically, is transfer of wealth from younger smokers
>to older or even dead smokers. What a dumb concept.
I don't know of any smokers in alt.smokers who disagree with that
sentiment either. We're aware of the risk. We take it willingly.
To demand compensation for our own decision would be dishonest and
stupid.
It should make you feel better, though, to know that exactly *one*
person has collected any money from such a suit, and the courts are
simply dismissing them more and more often.
----
Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Kevin Gavitt
"Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
EXACTLY!
Now, your NEXT assignment children is to find out how long ago the rate of
smoking began to measurably decline.
KFG
Dave Hitt
>
>"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>>if
>> there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health, would
>> it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
>> The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
>> genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
>> smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn meat on
>> charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
>> concerned, yes sirree....
>>
>
>I remember the days of the ludicrous "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections on
>aircraft... all the nauseating smoke would simply drift forward into the
>cabin.... your so-called "filtration" systems didn't do a damn bit of good.
>It was miserable.
Back then airlines changed their air filters an average of six times
per flight. Now that there's no smoking, they change them once, if
that. (The filter packs cost about sixty bucks each.) As a result
the air is much more dangerous *now* than it ever was when smoking was
allowed.
But you, in your ignorance, prefer it that way.
>Further, I remember having to sit in restaurants and smell some idiot's
>rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal. Non-smoking
>restaurants are a BLESSING.
Awww, did the nasty nasty smokers make poor widdle beachouse cry? And
did he, finding mommy unavailable, run to Big Brudder and say "hep me,
hep me, dem big nasty smokers is making me cry." And now that Big
Brudder has made it all better, poor widdle Beachouse is all happy
again!
But Big Brudder is now considering fat taxes and taxes on portion
sizes - who will poor widdle Beachouse run to now?
Kevin Gavitt
<snip>
>
> I will leave it to our readers to determine who is confused.
>
> Larry
>
> http://www.lcolby.com
>
Larry, I'm always glad to see you post and never more than now. I'm afraid
that my life at the moment is rather busy and I simply don't have the time
to make the sort of studied response that some have come to expect of me and
I gave up on this yutz after my first post to him.
Try not to let your blood pressure get too high or die laughing at his "
professional sophistication" with statistics.
KFG
Kevin Gavitt
"David Chamberlain" <david.ch...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3ABF8234...@attglobal.net...
http://www.cfis.org/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Math,+Statis
tics+and+the+Scientific+Method&number=9&DaysPrune=10&LastLogin=
Start here. This is a moderated forum on the junkscience.com "Trash Talk
BBS."
KFG
Kevin Gavitt
"IgOr" <igno...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrn9bvlev.7...@nospam.invalid...
> Kevin Gavitt <kga...@NYCAP.rr.com> wrote:
> *
> * "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> * news:_1Lv6.141470$47.20...@news.bc.tac.net...
> * >
> * > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> * > news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> * > >
> * > > Pretend you are speaking to a four year old and tell me how you can
> * prove
> * > > anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics,
that
> * the
> * > > sun will rise tomorrow morning.
> * > >
> * >
> * > I expect you expect the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
> * >
> * > > Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
> * > > oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
> * > > contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms
of
> * > > cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause
cancer"
> * > > because that would imply that every smoker will always contract
cancer.
> * > >
> * >
> * > It's a lottery, true. Some smokers don't get lung cancer or heart
disease
> * or
> * > atherosclerosis or emphysema. But smoking stacks the deck against you.
If
> * > you smoke, you are much more likely to get lung cancer and these other
> * > diseases, if you don't smoke, it is much less likely.
> * > Saying that smoking causes cancer does not mean that every smoker will
get
> * > cancer. There is a random element in the causality.
> * >
> * >
> *
> * In point of fact, saying that not every smoker will not get cancer is
saying
> * that the vast majority, and I mean VAST majority, will not get cancer.
About
> * 98% of smokers will get lung cancer, compared to about 99% of non
smokers.
>
> * The numbers don't look anywhere near as scary as saying that 80% of lung
> * cancer cases are smokers so it is rarely phrased in such a manner.
>
> The actual number is that Mattson et al. calculated that a 35 year old
> man who smokes 25 or more cigarettes per day has a 13% chance of dying
> from lung cancer before the age of 75 years. *
>
> * Mattson ME, Pollack ES, Cullen JW. What are the odds that smoking will
> kill you. American Journal of Public Health, 1987;77;425
>
> That's 13%, not 2%.
> --
> Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things. - George
Carlin
You have made two attempts at slight of hand here. The first is that the
figures are * calculated,* not MEASURED.
The second was * before the age of 75 years.*
Shame shame, everyone knows your name.
My figures come from measurements published in the 1964 Surgeon General's
report on Health and Smoking.
KFG
Kevin Gavitt
"Robert Woodburn" <wrwoo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ABFCF0A...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Kevin Gavitt wrote:
>
> > "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> > news:_1Lv6.141470$47.20...@news.bc.tac.net...
> > >
> > > "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
>
> *snip*
>
> > > >
> > In point of fact, saying that not every smoker will not get cancer is
saying
> > that the vast majority, and I mean VAST majority, will not get cancer.
About
> > 98% of smokers will get lung cancer, compared to about 99% of non
smokers.
> >
>
> I think the word "not" should appear before the word "get" in the last
sentence
> of the above paragraph. Twice.
****************************************************************************
***********
Well DUH! I thought faster than I typed, I hate when my fingers can't keep
up.
****************************************************************************
************
Kevin Gavitt
"Hilander" <hila...@block.lightspeed.ca> wrote in message
news:SLPv6.59685$tr5.6...@news1.telusplanet.net...
I don't know. Looks causal to me. I'm sure Beachhouse would agree. It's
certainly at least both statistically and clinically significant.
KFG
Dave Hitt
>let me re-edit this paragraph (disregard the earlier version):
No problem. We disregard everything you write.
Dave Hitt
>
>
>Kyoteee wrote:
>
>> "Beachhouse" <sendn...@please.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> Ah, but nobody claims that 85% of the people who are diagnosed with lung
>> >cancer
>> >> are current smokers at the time of diagnosis!
>> >
>> >What matters is the # of pack-years (i.e. the number of packs of cigarettes
>> >smoked per day x the # years of smoking).
>>
>> <snicker> There is no such thing as 'pack years', it's a silly,
>> meaningless term created by HealthNazis to make their lies sound scary
>> and credible. It has the opposite effect on thinking, intelligent
>> people.
>
>I'm glad to use their term, Kyotee. 6 cigarettes per year over 20 years = 6 pack
>years - a low enough figure that even the INSURANCE INDUSTRY considers you a
>nonsmoker.
A pack year is the number of packs a day you smoke times the number of
years. So, according to these idiots, smoking a half pack a day for
forty years is exactly the same as smoking two packs a day for ten
years. Or four packs a day for five years.
Brilliant, ain't it?
SHS, for those few constantly exposed to it, would not be six pack
years, but rather .016 x the number of years - so if they worked in a
bar for ten years, it would come out to .16 pack years.
"That person worked as a bartender for twenty years! That's .32 pack
years! Quick, put a sheet over his face!
Dave Hitt
How about, you and CBI have constantly demonstrated that you're both
completely ignorant of the most basic foundations of epidemiology.
We can agree on that.
Dave Hitt
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000117.html
With additional follow ups here:
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000118.html
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
news:fHHv6.13552$EO.4...@quark.idirect.com...> news:99m3fp$qrv6$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> > >if
> > > there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health,
would
> > > it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
> > > The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
> > > genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
> > > smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn meat
> on
> > > charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
> > > concerned, yes sirree....
> > >
> >
> > I remember the days of the ludicrous "smoking" and "non-smoking"
sections
> on
> > aircraft... all the nauseating smoke would simply drift forward into the
> > cabin.... your so-called "filtration" systems didn't do a damn bit of
> good.
> > It was miserable.
> >
> > rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal. Non-smoking
> > restaurants are a BLESSING.
>
blood
> clotting...and all that radiation must have caused more than a few cancer
> cases...
>
Neither is the fault of the airlines. Do you have evidence for "thousands of
deaths?" How many cancer deaths? Please cite evidence.
> But still nothing compared to the damage done by medical x-rays...
>
Please cite evidence of this, as well.
> A real blessing would be for the medicos to stop blasting people with
> radiation...I'm sure they could do without the kickbacks from the
clinics...
>
Please provide evidence that medicos "blast people with radiation," except
for cancer treatments and the like, which actually has been shown to help
people.''
Also, please provide evidence that they get kickbacks from the clinics.
Thanks so much.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
news:99m3fp$qrv6$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
>
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >if
> > there had been any genuine concern for passenger or staff health, would
> > it not have made more sense to mandate minimum levels of air quality?
> > The same applies to restaurants and bars; visiting a pizzeria with
> > genuyine wood-fired ovens or a steak house will expose me to far more
> > smoke than a few cigarettes. But chefs are still allowed to burn meat
on
> > charcoal while smokers have to stay outside. Very impartial and
> > concerned, yes sirree....
> >
>
> I remember the days of the ludicrous "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections
on
> aircraft... all the nauseating smoke would simply drift forward into the
> cabin.... your so-called "filtration" systems didn't do a damn bit of
good.
> It was miserable.
>
> Further, I remember having to sit in restaurants and smell some idiot's
> rancid cigar or Marlboro while trying to enjoy a good meal. Non-smoking
> restaurants are a BLESSING.
>
What do you mean smell some asshole's cigarettes just in the restaraunt? The
smell sticks around for ages on your clothes. When I come home from some
restaraunts, I have to air my jacket for days or wash it.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
news:3abe2f0f...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:47:57 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
> <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Really, why then are most drugs in early phases of clinical studies
shelved
> >by the drug companies when they don't work as hoped?
>
> Simple answer is they were told to find something that works and is
> profitable, if the new drug does not meet this criteria it is dropped.
>
And the problem with dropping a problem that doesn't work is?
As far as making money, they can charge whatever they want, right?
So what is the problem with that?
> >> This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the govt
> >> scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
> >> find ... they will find.
> >
> >Can you support with contention with facts?
>
You have one anecdote, without references that does not answer the question.
Not even close.
jeff
> Yes, I can. I will cite one specific example below. First let me
> explain that my main research is in Crohn's disease, I am not a doctor
> nor do I have formal scientific training. What I do posses is a strong
> mind and a vested interest in my research. (I have CD) I should also
> state I am not anti-milk or meat.
>
> The USDA in an attempt to prove that the mycobacterium avium ss.
> paratuberculosis (MAP) bacteria (cause of Johne's disease and may
> cause or trigger CD) did not survive the pasteurization process,
> "colored" the data by subjecting the MAP bacteria used to a number of
> dubious elements.
>
> The standard pasteurization process is holding raw milk at 72 Celsius
> for 15 seconds. Using this method and retail milk supply testing, MAP
> bacteria has been found to survive pasteurization. Testing of retail
> milk in the UK showed a 3% - 5% contamination of MAP. In other words
> they were able to grow MAP from 3 out of 100 milk containers.
>
> The USDA "simulated" pasteurization process method produced 0% MAP
> contamination. The USDA process first "starved" the bacteria, then
> subjected them to sound waves (not sure off the top of my head if it
> was high or low freq.), then the bacteria were frozen. They were added
> to the milk, the sample pasteurized with the standard hold time and
> temp. The culture media used to grow the MAP in after pasteurization
> was inadequate for the bacteria. (MAP requires mycobactin to be in the
> media, as it does not make it's own. no mycobactin no growth). Then
> the culture was grown for no longer than 3 months even though it takes
> at least 4 months for a positive determination of MAP growth.
> Bad science in my book.
>
> I can give other examples, like safe levels of chemicals that the
> govt. says are safe and will only back down from their position after
> many studies and public outcry. Unfortunately I do not have the time
> to research those out. CD research in my only focus right now. I don't
> want to give "data" that I cannot prove. That would be bad science,
> and trollish.
>
> Mike
>
> >
> >Jeff Utz
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:26:37 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
> >> <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I agree. Bad science is a disservice to society.
> >> >
> >> >However, were all the studies "colored?"
> >> >
> >> >Jeff Utz
> >> >
> >> >"Billy Goat Gruff III" <Troll...@for-romance.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3abe21f2...@news.earthlink.net...
> >> >> Jeff I also know of studies that are "colored" in order to prove the
> >> >> second hand smoke theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe you recall the study "showing" that second hand smoke caused
> >> >> SIDS. At least that is what the headline said, on further look, the
> >> >> smoking parents were asked to place the babies on their bellies to
> >> >> sleep while the non-smoking parents were instructed to place the
> >> >> babies on their backs or sides to sleep. The only thing this study
> >> >> proved was that laying babies on their belly increases the chance of
> >> >> SIDS. (something that had already been proven)
> >> >>
> >> >> Or how about the study that placed the rabbit's head in a tube then
> >> >> drew the smoke past their head with a slow fan. Basicaly (to use a
> >> >> drug term) shotgunning the rabbit. I would not consider
"shotgunning"
> >> >> as second hand smoke.
> >> >>
> >> >> The point is we all know that tabacco is not good for us in any
> >> >> quantity, but that is no reason to "color" studies to prove it. Good
> >> >> science is a service, bad science is a dis-service, even if that bad
> >> >> science is attempting to do good.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:42:50 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
> >> >> <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Yeah, except only 1/3 of people in this country smoke. So if 85% of
> >all
> >> >> >people with lung cancer smoked around the time of diagnosis, what
is
> >your
> >> >> >conclusion? It is easy to factor in and get a fairly accurate
> >proportion
> >> >of
> >> >> >lung cancer caused by smoking.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >BTW, what makes you think that only smokers have lung cancer caused
by
> >> >> >smoking? Ever hear of 2nd hand smoke? A proven carcinogen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jeff Utz
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:3ac71c17...@news4.newscene.com...
> >> >> >> J Wootton <jwoo...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Seems simple enough. If the person was a smoker and worked in
> >XXXXX,
> >> >the
> >> >> >cause was
> >> >> >> >smoking.
> >> >> >> >If they weren't a smoker... "cause unknown"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's pretty much it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My mother died of lung cancer at age 45. She didn't smoke. The
> >cause
> >> >> >> of death was listed as cancer. Listing smoking as the cause of
her
> >> >> >> death would have been stupid and inaccurate.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If she was a smoker, and had died on the exact same day at the
exact
> >> >> >> same time, what do you suppose would have been listed as the
cause
> >of
> >> >> >> death? And would it have been any smarter, or more accurate?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ----
> >> >> >> Economics for Democrats - Tax cuts made simple
> >> >> >> http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker"
to
> >> >> >reply)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
Dave Hitt
>> If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking,
>why
>> has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of
>time
>> when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
>> females by more than a third?
>>
>> Larry
>
>Because there is a latent period involved.
>If smoking rates continue to decline, lung cancer rates will also decline,
>but the two graphs will be out of synch by 10-15 years.
But the rate of smoking has been declining since the sixties. Where's
the decline in lung cancer?
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
> igno...@NOSPAM.invalid (IgOr) wrote:
>
>
> >But this is precisely the point. Some people have the intelligence of
four
> >year olds, and smoke because their brains cannot understand statistics.
> >The good news is that such stupid individuals have a higher rate of
> >death due to smoking related diseases, thereby vacating the gene pool
> >for people with better brains and genes, such as myself. Granted, most
> >of smokers die after menopause, but some die before and are unable to
> >leave offspring due to their stupidity and recalcitrance.
>
> Of course, what you see as stupidity is often simply someone willingly
> and knowingly deciding to trade pleasure for longevity. (Or, to be
> more accurate, to take a know risk that that might happen.)
>
Actually, the affects of smoking are worse and more incidious than you
imagine. After enough smoking, almost every smoker gets emphesymia. Their
ability to engage in sports and other fun activities goes downhill. They
tend to suffer heart attacks and vascular disease at a much higher rate.
Short of self-mutalation, I could not imagine anything that says "I hate me"
more than smoking.
They also hurt their kids. Their kids are more likely to smoke (which costs
like $1000 / year -- money that could be better spent on useful things like
retirement savings or education), have asthma, ear infections and other
problems.
jeff Utz
Billy Goat Gruff III
<kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Billy Goat Gruff III" <Troll...@for-romance.com> wrote in message
>news:3abe2f0f...@news.earthlink.net...
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:47:57 -0500, "Jeffrey Peter, M.D."
>> <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>And the problem with dropping a problem that doesn't work is?
>
>As far as making money, they can charge whatever they want, right?
>
>So what is the problem with that?
If a drug doesn't work or does not exceed what we already have then it
should be dropped or refined if possible.
As for making money, no they can't charge whatever they want, they can
only charge what the market will bear. If you have a drug that cures a
disease, but the price is so high that most can not afford it, sales
will be too low to justify manufacture.
So the drug will be dropped. The problem with it, is there are people
that may need this drug to live. Your original question is why are
drugs shelved. Lack of profitablity or the just don't work is the
answer. Look at "orphan" drugs. They work but are not profitable.
>> >> This is not limited to cancer studies, and the shame of it is the govt
>> >> scientist seem to be the worst offenders. What ever the were told to
>> >> find ... they will find.
>> >
>> >Can you support with contention with facts?
>>
>
>You have one anecdote, without references that does not answer the question.
>Not even close.
I listed a source when curly++ stated I did not put a cite. whoops.
goto http://www.shafran.net/crohns/mike/GotMilkArt.shtml (I moved it
to the site I am working on and cleaned a few bad links)
As I stated I could give other examples, but to do so I would have to
research the "anecdotes" to make sure they were accurate before
presenting them, I am swamped at the moment building a site and
researching Crohn's, and proving that scientists/researchers have a
vested interest and can/will color studies to "prove" what will
protect those interests, is real low on my list.
Mike
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
news:K%Pv6.304820$o91.42...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Except it is probably about 10% of all people who die from lung cancer (Lung
cancer accounts for about 1/3 of all cancer and about 1/3 of all people die
of cancer). So your chances of dieing of lung cancer are about 1/10 if you
smoke, 1/200 if you don't (It is about 20x less common in non-smokers). See
the ACS (www.cancer.org) or other sites (www.cancer.com, www.cdc.gov) for
stats. Lung cancer is not the only cancer caused by smoking. For example,
adult acute leukemia, stomach cancer and bladder cancer are also caused by
smoking.
There is no way that says "I want to die a horrible death" better than
smoking.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
>
>
> Kyoteee wrote:
>
> > "Beachhouse" <sendn...@please.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lauren A. Colby" <lco...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> >
lung
> > >cancer
> > >> are current smokers at the time of diagnosis!
> > >
> > >What matters is the # of pack-years (i.e. the number of packs of
cigarettes
> > >smoked per day x the # years of smoking).
> >
> > <snicker> There is no such thing as 'pack years', it's a silly,
> > meaningless term created by HealthNazis to make their lies sound scary
> > and credible. It has the opposite effect on thinking, intelligent
> > people.
>
> I'm glad to use their term, Kyotee. 6 cigarettes per year over 20 years =
6 pack
> years - a low enough figure that even the INSURANCE INDUSTRY considers you
a
> nonsmoker.
>
I pack-year is 7300 cigarrettes ( 365 x 20). 6 /year x 20 years = 120
cigarrettes which equals 0.02 pack years.
>
> > > Being an ex-smoker is not the same as being a non-smoker.
> >
> > Smokers and non-smokers know that all too well. Most AuntieNazis are
> > ex-smokers who sincerely believe that since they don't smoke any more,
> > they're allowed to lump themselves in with the never-smoker crowd.
> > Further silliness.
> >
> > >> A 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, conducted at Brigham and Women's
> > >Hospital in
> > >> Boston revealed that 59% of the patients were NOT smokers at the time
of
> > >> diagnosis. Of these, 8% of the sample had never smoked; 51% had
smoked at
> > >one
> > >> time but had given it up. Of the 51% who had quit, fully one fourth
had
> > >been off
> > >> cigarettes for at least 20 years.
> > >
> > >What about the other 41%?
> > >Sounds like 8% were non smokers... 51% had some degree of exposure to
> > >smoking (do we know the number of pack/years of exposure?).. and 41%
were
> > >current smokers.
> >
> > What does "some degree of exposure to smoking" mean? (We already know
> > that "pack-years" is meaningless.) Sounds like you're claiming that
> > if a person had tried cigarettes ONCE in his life, then he should be
> > considered an "ex-smoker" for the purposes of manipulating (i.e.,
> > lying) statistical data.
>
> That's the usual position of the Anti crowd, Kyoteee. And it's as errant
as "pack
> year", but if they want to look silly by manipulating data, the least we
as
> seekers of truth can do is to point out how silly their manipulation is -
so long
> as it leads down the road to truth. Truth is our ally and the Antis'
enemy.
>
> > >What's your point?
> >
> > That you'll go to any lengths to avoid considering *facts* (e.g., as
> > proven to you by Larry Colby and Dave Hitt, so far) in your zealous
> > determination to make smoking seem dangerous.
>
> Even Bruce Watson has found the guts to say ETS isn't dangerous. If he can
quit
> that lie, anyone can...
>
> But then, most Antis are in denial that their ETS hysterical hype has been
a lie
> from day one.
>
CBI
> In article <99nu9p$11n5q$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Beachhouse" says...
> >
> >> the years. At the same time, however, lung cancer death rates (LCDR's)
> >shot
> >> skyward, in both sexes. That's established by official figures
published
> >in the
> >> Statistical Abstract of the United States and republished in my book,
> >available
> >> on my web site.
> >
> >
> >you've made this same statement, repeatedly.
> >death rates (mortality data) do not equal incidence/prevalence
(morbidity
> >data) rates.
> >getting back to the original article -- on Kentucky -- we weren't given
> >enough detail from the newspaper to conclude anything at all. But you
> >clearly err when you generalize that lung cancer is a uniformly fatal
> >diagnosis, and you err further when you confuse morbidity with mortality.
> >
> >now, i know you are a libertarian and you feel passionately about this
> >issue. maybe there's some other issue in science we can agree on. :)
> >
> >
> >
find
> some.
By all means - don't let a lack of facts get in the way of expressing your
wishes...um....excuse me, views.
--
CBI, MD
Robert Woodburn
Dave Hitt wrote:
LOL! Thanks for the math help and for the great line!
Alex W.
IgOr <igno...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> Dave Hitt <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote:
> * igno...@NOSPAM.invalid (IgOr) wrote:
> * >But this is precisely the point. Some people have the intelligence
of four
> * >year olds, and smoke because their brains cannot understand
statistics.
> * >The good news is that such stupid individuals have a higher rate of
> * >death due to smoking related diseases, thereby vacating the gene
pool
> * >for people with better brains and genes, such as myself. Granted,
most
> * >of smokers die after menopause, but some die before and are unable
to
> * >leave offspring due to their stupidity and recalcitrance.
> *
> * Of course, what you see as stupidity is often simply someone
willingly
> * and knowingly deciding to trade pleasure for longevity. (Or, to be
> * more accurate, to take a know risk that that might happen.)
>
> That's true. Finally you are admitting that you trade pleasure (which
> is subjective, as I do not share your liking of tobacco smoke), for
> longevity.
>
> And that is fine, as I said many times. I go boating for pleasure,
> with all associated risks.
>
> * >Another advantage of having smokers around is that they, like
myself,
> * >contribute to Social Security, however due to their smoking habit
and
> * >relatively smaller life expectancy they will not use it as much as
> * >nonsmokers. Therefore smokers subsidise my retirement.
> *
> * Very good. Now if all nannies could come to understand that, they
> * could stop spewing the lie that smokers cost society money, when, in
> * fact, they save society money in two ways - some of them die earlier,
> * and most of them pay outrageous taxes.
>
> Yep. As far as I am concerned, smokers make me better off financially.
> The myth that smoking "costs" society is a lie propagated by lying
> liberals. Smoking is akin to Nazi era euthanazia of the old, but fully
> voluntary, and without the associated criminal element.
>
> * >I am, therefore, fully supportive of their right to smoke, and am
against
> * >most anti-tobacco regulations, lawsuits etc.
> * >
> * >I am generally rather amused by the stupidity of "tobacco lawsuits".
> * >What they are, basically, is transfer of wealth from younger smokers
> * >to older or even dead smokers. What a dumb concept.
> *
> * I don't know of any smokers in alt.smokers who disagree with that
> * sentiment either. We're aware of the risk. We take it willingly.
>
> I just saw, like, a bazillion of posts from posters like "Alex W" that
> evidenced complete denial of risk. Their posts would come handy for the
> greedy tobacco lawyers.
If you read it that way, I can't help it.
I an aware of the risk. I have made a choice. I accept the consequences
if and when they kick in.
I just can't be bothered to compose a signature to this effect (which, at
any rate, would be far longer than the accepted four lines).
>
> * To demand compensation for our own decision would be dishonest and
> * stupid.
>
> Indeed.
>
> * It should make you feel better, though, to know that exactly *one*
> * person has collected any money from such a suit, and the courts are
> * simply dismissing them more and more often.
>
> That is not true, actually. The result of the suits is the gargantuan
> "settlement" between tobacco companies and the government. It is quite
> real.
True, in a sense.
But who collects the money? The states. The bureaucracy. The providers
of pork. Definitely not individuals.
Alex W -- who is aware of the risk, who has never denied the risk, who
acepts the risk. Happy now?
Alex W.
> In article <99ltg9$hgq$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, "Alex
says...> >news:99lm1...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <99lgdm$157gk$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Beachhouse"
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >I would add:
> >> >
> >> >"e) hopefully we would see a *future* reduction in *incidence*
rates
> >for
> >> >lung
> >> >cancer if there is, in fact, a sustained trend towards lower rates
of
> >> >tobacco abuse (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.)"
> >> >
> >> >The problem is that we have a whole new generation of smokers out
> >there ...
> >> >puffing away. Note that the CDC data you quoted refers to "adult"
> >smokers.
> >> >My guess is that we'll still see a ton of new cases unless things
> >change in
> >> >a hurry.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> According to a 1995 Report, published on the CDC website, the
national
> >rate of
> >> cigarette smoking declined from 52% of men and 26% of women in 1965,
to
> >28% of
> >> men and 24% of women in 1991. This is for adults 18 years and older.
> >The 1964
> >> Surgeon General's Report gave a figure of 68% for male smoking in
1961.
> >Thus,
> >> the actual decline in the male rate from 1961 to 1991 was from 68%
down
> >to 28%
> >>
> >> During the same time period lung cancer death rates (LCDR's) for
both
> >sexes
> >> rose, substantially.
> >
> >A question to either (both) of you: are any of those figures corrected
> >for our overall increased life expectancy?
> >It just occurs to me that we always assume that lung cancer rates are
> >rising, and that the rise is (allegedly) entirely due to smoking. But
if
> >people died ten or twenty years younger only fifty years ago, how
could
> >we compare the rate of lung cancer? It is, after all, a disease with
a
> >very long incubation period and tends to crop up in what is now late
> >middle age.
> >
> >Alex
> >
> In my book, available at my web site (referenced below), you can get
the LCDR's
> for different age groups, for the time period 1970 through 1990. Since
the
> figures are divided into rates/100,000 population in different age
groups, they
> are automatically age adjusted.
Thanks, Larry.
Not a very long period for comparison, is it?
Alex
rumik
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99lsmk$ca0$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> >
> > Pretend you are speaking to a four year old and tell me how you can prove
> > anything at all with statistics. Prove to me, using statistics, that the
> > sun will rise tomorrow morning.
> >
>
> I expect you expect the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
>
> > Furthermore, your statement that "smoking causes cancer" is a gross
> > oversimplification and plain wrong in its implication. Smoking is a
> > contributory factor increasing the risk of contracting certain forms of
> > cancer in smokers. In itself and by itself it does not "cause cancer"
> > because that would imply that every smoker will always contract cancer.
> >
>
> It's a lottery, true. Some smokers don't get lung cancer or heart disease or
> atherosclerosis or emphysema. But smoking stacks the deck against you. If
> you smoke, you are much more likely to get lung cancer
Oh really! Then please explain why there are more non-smoker patients
in lung cancer clinics than smokers.
rumik
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99og41$7f9$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> > Further, human nature is very comfortable with simple answers, regardless
> > of the complexity of the question. What is wanted is certainty, not
> > accurate information.
>
> reminds me of the old joke: 100% of people diagnosed with cancer had been to
> see the doctor. Does that mean doctors cause cancer?
It's the water. Drinking water (or any other liquid) causes cancer.
This theory can be easily proved. Stop drinking liquids, and you'll
NEVER get cancer.
Rumik, M.D.D.
rumik
> "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>
> >> If as the article suggests, 87% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking,
> >why
> >> has the lung cancer rate remained so stubbornly high during a period of
> >time
> >> when the rate of smoking for males has been cut by more than half, and for
> >> females by more than a third?
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Because there is a latent period involved.
> >If smoking rates continue to decline, lung cancer rates will also decline,
> >but the two graphs will be out of synch by 10-15 years.
>
> But the rate of smoking has been declining since the sixties. Where's
> the decline in lung cancer?
But, but, but...
Didn't Bawb promise us that all cancers and illnesses will be eliminated,
once smoking is banned?
He didn't lie, did he?
Robert Woodburn
Kyoteee wrote:
> "Jeffrey Peter, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
> >
> >> igno...@NOSPAM.invalid (IgOr) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >But this is precisely the point. Some people have the intelligence of
> >four
> >> >year olds, and smoke because their brains cannot understand statistics.
> >> >The good news is that such stupid individuals have a higher rate of
> >> >death due to smoking related diseases, thereby vacating the gene pool
> >> >for people with better brains and genes, such as myself. Granted, most
> >> >of smokers die after menopause, but some die before and are unable to
> >> >leave offspring due to their stupidity and recalcitrance.
> >>
> >> Of course, what you see as stupidity is often simply someone willingly
> >> and knowingly deciding to trade pleasure for longevity. (Or, to be
> >> more accurate, to take a know risk that that might happen.)
> >>
> >
> >Actually, the affects of smoking are worse and more incidious than you
> >imagine. After enough smoking, almost every smoker gets emphesymia.
>
> That is so patently, outrageously untrue it's not even funny. How
> about citing your sources for making this stupid statement?
>
> >Their
> >ability to engage in sports and other fun activities goes downhill. They
> >tend to suffer heart attacks and vascular disease at a much higher rate.
>
> At a much higher rate than....??? People who have never smoked a
> cigarette in their lives? Who have never drunk alcohol? Who over-eat?
> Who are addicted to junk foods? Are you taking into account their
> genetic propensity (or lack thereof) for heart and/or vascular
> disease? (I didn't think so.)
>
> >Short of self-mutalation, I could not imagine anything that says "I hate me"
> >more than smoking.
>
> Alcoholism
> Obesity
> Nannyism
> Anti-sociability
> Masochism
>
> ....just for starters
Let me add "Rebirthing Naziism", and cite the following website to show that it's
alive and well:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010326/ts/book_burning010326_1.html
> >They also hurt their kids. Their kids are more likely to smoke (which costs
> >like $1000 / year -- money that could be better spent on useful things like
> >retirement savings or education), have asthma, ear infections and other
> >problems.
>
> Kids are NOT harmed in any way, shape, or form by being around adults
> who smoke. The opposite appears to be true to a great extent. Haven't
> you noticed a very sharp increase among your alleged patients with
> asthma or (especially) allergies? When a child is raised in an
> environment where their parents go to absurd lengths to 'protect' him
> from cigarette smoke, air fresheners, bbq grills, pesticides, etc.,
> their abusing that child because he can't develop natural immunities
> against many viral and bacterial elements. Result? They develop
> allergies which could have been prevented. Cost? Immeasurable!
>
> So much for 'protecting children'.
It's about control and money, Kyoteee. Only it works in reverse, because once
they lose the control, they lose all the money, too.
Robert Woodburn
rumik wrote:
Sounds like Bawb had an incurable case of optimism about his pessimism.
Lauren A. Colby
>> Unfortunately, I have no age adjusted incidence figures. Maybe you can
>find
>> some.
>
>By all means - don't let a lack of facts get in the way of expressing your
>wishes...um....excuse me, views.
>
>--
>CBI, MD
>
Well, CBI, this is where we differ. I think that because of the relatively short
survival rate for lung cancer, death rates are a good marker for the prevalence
of the disease. Practically all of the civilized nations collect and publish
death rates. Very few, if any, publish incidence rates. An excellent summary of
the death rate figures, together with the life expectancies and the smoking
prevalences for 87 countries may be found at the following link:
http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages.htm
Larry
Lauren A. Colby
No, it's not. Unfortunately, we do not have LCDRs for the time period prior to
1970. Even if we could find some estimates, they probably would not be reliable
because, in the early years, medicine in the U.S. was not yet socialized and
many people died without the benefit[?] of accurate diagnosis.
Larry
Billy Goat Gruff III
wrote:
<snip>
>No, it's not. Unfortunately, we do not have LCDRs for the time period prior to
>1970. Even if we could find some estimates, they probably would not be reliable
>because, in the early years, medicine in the U.S. was not yet socialized and
>many people died without the benefit[?] of accurate diagnosis.
Please define "socialized" I am in the US and don't think our system
qualifies.
Mike
Marky
"Jeffrey Peter, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F78D3B40437F5D58.1A806105...@lp.airnews.net...
> Actually, the affects of smoking are worse and more incidious than you
> imagine. After enough smoking, almost every smoker gets emphesymia. Their
> ability to engage in sports and other fun activities goes downhill. They
> tend to suffer heart attacks and vascular disease at a much higher rate.
So, Doc, what causes non-smokers heart disease? You do know, of course, that
non-smokers suffer from this disease (and die) at a rate of 5:1 over
smokers...your own stats tell the tale, yet you disregard this blatant
evidence that the medicos are lying...why is that?
> Short of self-mutalation, I could not imagine anything that says "I hate
me"
> more than smoking.
Living in polluted cities...drinking, REAL drugs, prescription drugs,
x-rays, living in nuke fallout zones (like, you know, everywhere)...becoming
an M.D. (oh, the sacrifices one must make to be a priest)....
> They also hurt their kids. Their kids are more likely to smoke (which
costs
> like $1000 / year -- money that could be better spent on useful things
like
> retirement savings or education), have asthma, ear infections and other
> problems.
You mean like forcing them to live in polluted cities? You mean like forcing
them into mini-vans or cars to be exposed to hundreds of times the amount of
"poison" than ETS could ever dream of having?
Are you sure you're an M.D. or are you a fake?
Sorry, I must have cut out your absurd notion that all smokers get
emphysema...mind if I laugh now? Hahahaha
Marky -- formerly wanted to be doctor...now not so sure if I can lie that
much for the "profession" --