Posted on 11/27/2002 9:02:48 AM PST by SheLion
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)
When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, there answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then the answer based upon current evidence should be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone used the word "cause."
Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way they are collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.
You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die" but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
When we look at the data over a longer period of time, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense... it may be a new avenue of scientific inquiry.
The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for "causing" lung cancer!
Take a look in any dictionary and you will find something like, "anything producing an effect or result."18 At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X "causes" Y. For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% of the time. Yet the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time.
As ludicrous as that is, the medical and lay press is littered with such pabulum and gobbley-guk. Even as web literate physician, it took me over 50 hours of internet time to find enough raw data to write this article. I went through thousands of abstracts and numerous articles, to only find two articles that even questioned the degree of correlation between smoking and lung cancer (British lung cancer rates do not correlating to smoking rates)19,20 and another two articles which questioned the link between second hand smoke (passive smoking) and lung cancer.21,22 Everywhere I looked the information was hidden in terms like "odds ratio," "relative risk," or "annualized mortality rate," of which most doctors probably could not accurately define and interpret them all let along someone outside the medical profession. The public relies on the media to interpret this morass of data but instead they are given politically correct and biased views.
If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need for using language appropriately in the medical and scientific literature (the media as a whole may be a lost cause).
Everything in life has risk; just going to work each day has risk. Are we supposed to live our lives in bed, hiding under the blanket in case a tornado should come into our bedroom? We in science, have a duty to give the public accurate information and then let them decide for themselves what risk is appropriate. To do otherwise is to subtly impose our biases on the populace.
We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline as it strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science. Every article/study has some bias in it, the goal is to minimize such biases and present the facts in a comprehensible and logical manner. Unfortunately, most scientists have never taken a course in logic and I'm sure that English class was not their favorite. Theoretics is a field of science which focuses on the use of logic and appropriate language in order to develop scientifically credible theories and ideas which will then have experimental implications. As someone whom I respect says, "Words mean things." Let us use language and logic appropriately in our research and the way that we communicate information.
* * * * *
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)
This is by a DOCTOR! And the WHO! And the CDC!!!!!!
I know it's hard. But my theory is that when we love to do something, that makes it all the harder to stop. But when we can't stand something, we throw it out, never to do it again.
Smoking isn't good for us. But like I ask...what is? If we observed all the health warnings we would be rocking in a corner of our house, waiting for death.
If you do try to stop smoking, PLEASE PLEASE DON'T TURN TO BIG PHARM! Don't be giving your money to the stop smoking aides. That's why Big Pharm wants all the smokers to QUIT! So THEY can reap the benefits of our money. They are no better then the rest of them.
I talked to my Doctor last year (weak moment) asking him how he feels about Zyban. He told me to just quit. That I didn't need all that stuff. I read a phamplet in his office about all the side effects of the patch and pills. Seizures, high blood pressure etc. So, at least MY Doctor is an honest man. God Bless Him.
Oh for heaven's sake. There is no pleasing you bigots.
Oh! But I thought the world PRAISED the WHO and the CDC!
hmmmmmmmm wow! Who would have thought.
What's not to agree with in this statement - in fact it's what most of us have been saying all along.
Nor this doctor's, lol (lots of errors here, which surprises me. I'd have thought to be taken more seriously by other professionals, he'd at least have someone proof and edit his paper...but I was an English major, oh well.). Nevertheless, interesting article. Thanks for posting, SheLion.
It doesn't matter if they do or if they don't.
Most who use this tactic, if they would be honest, just want smoking tobacco banned because they don't like the smell.
There may be a very few that actually want it banned for health benefits but they are probably lost in the noise and, if the truth be told, would like to run everyones lives as they see fit.
In other words, 7 out of every 8 USWM who die of lung cancer happen to be smokers. Therefore (?????) smoking does NOT cause lung cancer.
I don't think that's correct.
Let me think about this for a few minutes.
Wow. So being a smoker only increases you chance of dying from lung cancer by 800%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.