What your post doesn’t claim (not your fault, there are no studies to my knowledge) is how many of that 17% would have died of lung or other cancer anyway. The Breast Cancer folks claimed an even higher rate of smoking-related deaths, altho I can’t remember the figure. But I have my own evidence. Of my six aunts and my mother, five were lifelong smokers. The other two had never TOUCHED a cigarette and lived with nonsmoking husbands. The two who had never smoked had radical mastectomies (and are still living). Of the remaining five, my mother died of stomach cancer and an aunt who smoked died of lymphosarcoma (neither related to smoking). All my aunts but one are still living. The youngest is 89.
Insofar as lung cancer’s concerned, smoking MIGHT be a catalyst, but it’s never a cause. The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer or that lung cancer springs from something other than or in addition to smoking or that other diseases claimed the remaining smokers and/or that some unknown number of smokers in the test still live.
And, of course, nothing you’ve cited disproves the respiratory specialist’s 1%-claim. Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.
Its interesting that this subject has come up. I remember reading an article a long time ago, that, in part, cast doubt on the idea that cigarettes caused cancer to the degree that was claimed (and made a point similar to yours — smoking is involved in lung cancer, but not the cause). This was a mainstream medical article, and seemed credible. The following point was not the main point in the article, and had an otherwise anti-smoking theme.
Apparently, there were a lot of studies back in the 60s and 70s which calculated the expected drop in lung cancer, correlated to various scenarios in terms of reduction of usage. The articles’ point is that we have seen a reduction in usage, but the drop in lung cancer (both incidence, and fatalities), hasn’t been nearly as significant as expected. The result has been in a reduction in lung cancer among smokers (due to fewer smokers, but I do remember that the rate had also changed, but can’t remember which way), but an increase in lung cancer among non-smokers (by number, but also by rate, by a non-trivial amount).
Given that this article was at least 15 years ago, and I only remember bits and pieces of it, I was curious if anyone knows whether it has any validity to it.
True. They claim mouth, esophageal and even bladder (!?) cancer is affected by smoking, but have demonstrated no causal mechanism.
The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer...
Exactly.
Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.
Correct; it would be much higher.
You have a good point, and it would help justify illegals’ violent acts in the US.
What percentage of people mugged, raped or murdered would have been mugged, raped or murdered if the illegals weren’t here?