[decal]

A buncha lawyers aren’t going to be pleased to hear about this. Of course, tobacco company lawyers will.

And will we finally be rid of those mesothelioma commercials that have been playing late nights since the late 50s?

[fruser1]

"yet it's still unknown how this disease arises in those who have never smoked at all"

OOPS! They let it slip that "second hand" smoke has nothing to do with it. Expect some corrections or re-edits of this article within 24 hours.

[RummyChick]

ashkenazi jew might have this issue...they seem to have cancer quirks

[JouleZ]

FU, Rob Reiner!

[Bernard]

One thing I did not see addressed in the excerpt - what about smokers who don't develop lung cancer? It's possible that the genetic background that causes lung cancer in never smokers is what causes some people to develop the disease while other people don't. But, there is probably not enough money in that option to warrant research.

Guess we will have to wait for Fauci to express an opinion, then we can use that as the "Well, it's not that" conclusion.

[TalBlack]

Even still, the authors note that if we can find a pharmaceutical that disrupts signals to the lungs’ progenitor cells, it could help halt the growth of piano tumors.

And the great thing? You don’t have to test them anymore! Just throw it out there!

[nagant]

All cancer represents a loss of cellular energy, the genetic transformation from creating and using energy to creating tissue. Diet and exercise help stave off this transformation. Not everyone with good diet and exercise will avoid cancer, and not everyone with bad diet and exercise will get cancer.

[cyclotic]

My brother had two dogs die of lung cancer about ten years apart and different breeds.

Wonder if it’s the same cause

[OrangeHoof]

A dear cousin of mine died from lung cancer at age 70 although she was never a smoker, nor was her husband. Her father, however, was a constant pipe smoker back in the 40s and 50s while she was growing up.

[Albion Wilde]

bump