Posted on 02/14/2009 11:27:16 AM PST by lewisglad
Patrick Swayze cut a gaunt figure when he was spotted in public for the first time in weeks. The actor, who is fighting pancreatic cancer, looked gaunt and frail as he defiantly smoked a cigarette while waiting for wife Lisa Niemi in Beverly Hills.
Once famed for his athletic body and steamy routines in the 1987 hit movie Dirty Dancing, the actor now looks a shadow of his former self.
The 56-year-old smoked several cigarettes in under 10 minutes, according to onlookers, puffing big clouds of smoke out of the truck.'He was puffing away and appeared as if he didn't have a care in the world. It's so sad,' said one.
Reports from the US suggest that he has stopped treatment for the cancer, including chemotherapy, after experiencing extreme side-effects such as excruciating dental pain making it impossible to chew food.
The actor blows a plume of smoke out the window of his car, smoking several cigarettes in just 10 minutes
He is believed to have undergone dental surgery to repair his damaged gums and save his teeth.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I can tell you who sounds callous, angy, bitter, and selfish on this thread. It's not the smokers.
And he owns an F-150. What a guy!
“Smoking causes lung, mouth and throat cancer.”
Just FYI, it can cause bladder cancer as well.
I bet you are one of those nasty people who burn wood in their fireplace
~nasty~nasty~nasty~
http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/index.html
“I don’t see the link between woodburning and smoking ciggarrettes though...”
Obviously you wouldn’t.
God bless Mr. Swayze.....God bless.....
Yes, dear. I'm sure you think you are.
Oh, and just a suggestion:
Try reading post #129.
I also don't feel a liberal compulsion to control other peoples lives.
But you can choose not to emit nasty emissions out of your home or car. You just choose to poison the air that folks breathe while condemning guys that are dying from having a smoke.
Liberalism is a mental disorder and you seem to be dosordered.
if a cigarette relaxes Patrick than he should smoke...it can be no worse than taking dozens of pain pills like millions do everyday......
I hope he has a nice drink along with is smoke.....
Thats remarkably patronising for something that contains not even one citation of evidence, or perhaps, judging from the tone, you thought that kind of thing was beyond my comprehension.
And now a link to some actual research, backed up with citations to medical journals and research studies, which suggest that those exposed to second-hand smoke are between 24% and 27% more likely to develop lung-cancer than those who are not:
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/#Passive
Even in the unlikely possibility of there being doubt about this, it isn’t your prerogative to take that chance and put other people’s lives at risk.
Honestly, I really couldn’t care less if people want to shoot themselves up with a big bag of heroin cut with ajax and die in the gutter, as long as you don’t impinge on me, I don’t have a problem with it. You smoking indoors where I am forced to inhale it means you are forcing the consequences of your choice on to me, and that is not acceptable....
"In epidemiologic research," noted a 1994 press release from the National Cancer Institute, "relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." The press release concerned a study reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that found that women who have abortions are 1.5 times as likely to get breast cancer as women who don't. An editorial that accompanied the study said that a 50 percent difference in risk "is small in epidemiologic terms and severely challenges our ability to distinguish if it reflects cause and effect or if it simply reflects bias."* At least seven studies have found a statistically significant link between abortion and breast cancer, and a 1996 meta-analysis yielded a risk ratio of 1.3 In response, public health authorities, reporters, and even the researchers themselves have emphasized the uncertainties associated with small relative risks. Such caution is equally appropriate in discussions of ETS and lung cancer, but it is rarely seen--perhaps because the right to smoke, unlike the right to abortion, is not very fashionable in journalistic and public health circles."--p. 168One of the largest case-controlled studies was led by Ross C. Brownson of the Missouri Department of Health. His focus was on lung cancer since the EPA had, in a politically inspired move, declared environmental tobacco smoke a carcinogen.
"...there was no overall association between lung cancer and childhood, spousal, or workplace exposure, and none of the subgroup results reported in the tables was statistically significant."--page 167, For Your Own Good.*Something overlooked by virtually everyone who likes to trumpet the increase in relative risk for breast cancer as a means of fighting abortion is this: Women with the greatest risk of breast cancer (those who don't have the BRCA mutations) are those who have never been pregnant and have never breast-fed. Women who have the lowest risk of breast cancer are those who have had the most children at the earliest age and breast-fed them for longer periods of time. The idea is that, in addition to any protective effects of breast feeding, the less ovulation cycles one has, the more decreased the risk of breast cancer. Pregnancy decreases the number of ovulation cycles a woman goes through. So a woman who has had an abortion is moved relatively along the continuum toward the nullparous woman in terms of risk for breast cancer because, through the abortion, she has decreased the protective effects of pregnancy and, because she has aborted a child, the protective effects of breast-feeding him.
that is much less a problem nowadays.....I find now that relatives want the patient completely snowed, not even a whimper or a loud breath......
the problem with narcotics is that they can depress your respiratory system, and the point of pain pills is NOT to kill the patient right then and there....
“No, I’m telling the truth. I can smell the cigarette smoking coming out of closed cars of smokers right next to me on the road. It’s that pungent that it even overwhelms gasoline fumes.”
I’ve been staring at this for ten minutes trying to think of a respectful response...
Didn’t work — I’m speechless.
Once in the store I was down to one cigarette and was about to buy another pack so I put it unlit in my mouth and threw the pack away. A big fat bitch started coughing her head off. When asked by her husband what the problem was she pointed at me and cried that my cigarette was making her sick. He pointed out that it wasn't lit. She stopped coughing and said that "something" was making her sick, to which he replied that she was making him sick.
It is usually an act or a sure sign of feebleness or aids.
I saw an episode of his new show “The Beast” last Thursday night. It was very good. I mean really really good. Try it, you’ll like it!
You have a very good point, well done!
Some of us were vegetarians, ate lots of vegetables and whole grains, never smoked, drank little, exercised, meditated, and got cancer anyway.
Then we realized that a lot of our attempts to live right were only to give us an illusion of having some control over the outcome, which was just that, an illusion.
We are all, every one of us, going to die, of something that we will have NO control over.
I suppose you are talking about the one we know. I wonder what the other ones are that we don’t know.
Oh wait, he the “Chosen One” and we should not question or second guess ANYTHING he does or says.
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.