One in Four Smokers Will Get Lung Disease

Yahoo ^ | yahoo.com | yahoo

[Alter Kaker]

LOL! So you're suggesting smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? Is this really a cause you want to take on? What are you, the Don Quixote of the online forum world?

[Quix]

The Righteous Right and the Loony Left are equals. Both are willing to utilize government guns to enforce their morals, trampling on the individual's rights in the name of the community. Both are equally dangerous to our great Republic and both have no place in legislation. Both are enemies to freedom.

That you think your brand of socialism isn't liberal is rather comical.
= = = =

Clearly, we live on different planets . . .

Evidently smokers, if I understand the post accurately, beleive in repealing the legislated morality of stoplights, against murder, against raping 4 year olds, against offing one's parents when their care becomes bothersome, against racing down the street at 75+ mph thru the school zone . . . those being such horribly hideous restrictions on personal rights and liberties and all.

Christians have expanded personal freedoms and rights around the globe for many centuries for many disadvantaged and repressed peoples of all colors and backgrounds. I suppose it is somewhat to be expected that folks who claim that depositing sticky gooey permanent tar on delicate cellular lung tissues is a wonderful expression of freedom might have difficulty keeping facts straight about Christians and personal freedoms.

That is rather perversely comical in a sort of FRIDY THE 13TH kind of way.

[Ditter]

Carolyn, I am so sorry to hear of your condition. I went thought the same things with all my family that was part of the WW2 generation (father mother aunts uncles and in laws). I see the smokers on this thread are ignoring you as they usually do when someone says something they don't want to hear.God Bless you.

[CDHart]

Thank you. I beat it once, and God willing I'll beat it again!

Carolyn

[SheLion]

Non-Christians are idiots? Mind expanding on that? Keep digging your hole...

Anyone who takes the Lords name in vain is not a good Christian, IMHO.

 Forget the holes.  Just crawl back under your rock.  And oh yes!  Don't forget to VOTE!!

[Ditter]

You are correct about the Marlboro man dying of lung cancer. I met the MM's younger brother shortly after his brother death. The younger brother had just taken over as the new MM. He was smoking up a storm, it appeared that his brothers death didn't clue him in to the possibilities.

[Alter Kaker]

Anyone who takes the Lords name in vain is not a good Christian, IMHO.

I'm not a Christian at all. Does that make me an idiot?

[SheLion]

LOL! So you're suggesting smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? Is this really a cause you want to take on? What are you, the Don Quixote of the online forum world?

Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-4

Oct/Nov 1999 Editorial

Smoking Does Not

Cause Lung Cancer

(According to WHO/CDC Data)*

By:  James P. Siepmann, MD

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, their 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 their answer based upon current evidence should have 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 uses 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 that it was 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, 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 to the general public, what a concept!

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 genetics^4,5,6, asbestos exposure⁷, sex⁸, HIV status⁹, vitamin deficiency¹⁰, diet^11,12,13, 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!

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 gobbledygook. 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, only to 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." Most doctors probably could not accurately define and interpret them all these terms accurately, let alone 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 to use language appropriately in both 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 a subtle imposition of our biases on the populace.

We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that 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 and communicate 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 in the way that we communicate information.

* * * * *

Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.

* * * * *

The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)

or

"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)

1. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
2. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
3. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
4. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
5. Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.³
7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.²³
11. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.¹ (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

*This article was revised after errors in the data and calculations were noticed by Charles Rotter, Curtis Cameron and Jesse V. Silverman.  This is the corrected version.  A special thanks to both.

**WHO data of member countries

Keywords:  lung cancer, mortality, tobacco, smoking, Theoretics, language, WHO, cigarette, cigar, logic.

---

For those of you who actually read the whole article...

As long as I'm being controversial by presenting both sides of the story, do I dare tell you that a woman is three times more likely to die from an abortion than from delivering a baby (WHO data).

Journal Home Page

 

email: mail@journaloftheoretics.com

© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 1999  (Note: all submissions become the property of the journal)

 

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Editorial%201-4.html

 

[Ditter]

I suspect you won't see the truth until you see it on your x-ray or MRI.

[SheLion]

I'm not a Christian at all. Does that make me an idiot?

Your attitude on a Free Republic thread and the way you treat fellow Freepers just because they choose to use a legal product makes you an idiot, in my honest opinion. And I know others who feel the same way I do.

[Hildy]

That's true, but have you ever watched someone die of pulmonary disease or lung cancer? You ever watch someone you love gasp for air, but not be able to? We're all gonna die, but this is not the way I would want to go.

[Blackirish]

He was smoking up a storm, it appeared that his brothers death didn't clue him in to the possibilities.

---

LOL....Darwin award for a family?

[Alter Kaker]

You're going to have to find a better journal. The "Journal of Theoretics" isn't a real scientific peer reviewed journal (its oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithsdtanding). It's a forum to legitimize the pseudo-scientific rantings of minimally qualified kooks (most of which seem to rail against that fool Einstein, that fool Heisenberg, etc.) that can't hack it into real journals.

As for your misrepresentations of WHO/CDC data, according to PubMed, a total of 8,646 real, peer-reviewed studies reached the alternate conclusion. Nobody in their right mind doubts that smoking causes lung cancer -- no causal link has ever been more conslusively established by more scientists doing more research.

[Alter Kaker]

By the way, just say the word, and I will post all 8,646 studies conclusively linking lung cancer to smoking. I don't want to let your nonsense stand unchallenged.

[mc5cents]

Now I'm a fellow with a heart of gold

And the ways of a gentleman I've been told

Kind-of-a-guy that wouldn't even harm a flea

But if me and a certain character met

The guy that invented that cigarette

I'd murder that son-of-a gun in the first degree

It ain't cuz I don't smoke 'em myself

and i don't reckon that it'll hinder your health

I smoked 'em all my life and I ain't dead yet

But nicotine slaves are all the same

at a pettin' party or a poker game

Everything gotta stop while they have a cigarette

CHORUS

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette

Puff, puff, puff until you smoke yourself to death.

Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate

That you hate to make him wait,

But you just gotta have another cigarette.

In a game of chance the other night

Old dame fortune was good and right

The kings and queens they kept on comin' around

Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high

But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy

He kept callin' and layin' his money down

See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him

and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim

Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!

--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!

He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two

But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."

CHORUS

Now the other night I had a date

with the cutest little gal in any state

A high-bred, uptown, fancy little dame

She said she loved me and it seemd to me

That things were sorta like they oughtta be

So hand in hand we strolled down lovers lane

She was a long way from a chunk of ice

And our pettin' party was goin' real nice

And I got an idea I might have been there yet

So I give her a kiss and a little squeeze

Then she said, "Travis, Excuse me Please

But I just gotta have a cigarette."

[SheLion]

By the way, just say the word, and I will post all 8,646 studies conclusively linking lung cancer to smoking. I don't want to let your nonsense stand unchallenged.

Believe what you want to believe and I will stick with the facts.  Thank you

[Alter Kaker]

By the way, you guys should definitely let Big Tobacco know that their product doesn't cause lung cancer. Apparently, they've been inadvertantly defaming themselves for years!

Philip Morris USA (PM USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.

These are and have been the messages of the U.S. Surgeon General and public health authorities worldwide. Smokers and potential smokers should rely on these messages in making all smoking-related decisions.

Click on the links to the right to obtain more information about cigarette smoking and disease in smokers directly from these public health organizations: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization (WHO), U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Cancer Society. Our Support of Consistent Public Health Messages PM USA supports a single, consistent public health message on the role played by cigarette smoking in the development of disease in smokers, as well as smoking and addiction. This includes our support of the law that requires cigarette manufacturers to place health warnings on packages and in advertisements and our belief that government and public health officials should determine the content of the warning messages.

Source: http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/cigarette_smoking_and_disease.asp

[Alter Kaker]

Believe what you want to believe and I will stick with the facts. Thank you

So let me get this straight. You post some nonsense from a blog masquerading as a "scientific journal." I offer to post 8,646 studies from real scientific journals proving you not only wrong, but ludicrously wrong. And you're accusing me of ignoring facts? I think your outlook has been compromised by your addiction.

[Toby06]

Of all of "natures gifts" that a person could enjoy, I never understood why smoking would be one of them.

Than what gives you the right to criticize you don't understand? And I am not belittling life, just enjoying it, but you wouldn't understand that obviously.

[Toby06]

but this is not the way I would want to go.

Isn't it great we get to choose?