Posted on 03/16/2002 6:48:14 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
ombined, three Red Hook buddies have smoked cigarettes for nearly 140 years, and two of them are still lighting up.
Averaging a pack or more a day each, that's more than a million cigarettes. So it's no wonder the three pals — Herbert Garnett, 65, Colie Dunbar, 60, and Valentin Morales, 71 — recently decided they should all get their lungs examined.
"A lot of smokers fear going to the doctor because they fear something will be wrong. But a test can help before things get too bad," said Garnett, who quit smoking in 1996.
"The doctor said if I quit smoking, my lungs would eventually clear," said Garnett. "I wanted to see if that had happened."
Garnett, Dunbar and Morales, who visit with each other daily at the Red Hook Senior Center, went to Maimonides Medical Center in Borough Park for a screening offered as part of a study of heavy smokers 60 and older.
The study by the New York Early Lung Cancer Action Program began last spring to determine if CAT scanning can improve the early detection of lung cancer among people at high risk.
The Academic Medicine Development Co. — a consortium of 35 state medical centers, hospitals and research institutions — is in charge of the study at 12 sites statewide, including Maimonides and SUNY Downstate in Central Brooklyn.
Early Detection Saves Lives
Lung cancer kills an estimated 160,000 Americans annually. But if cancer nodules are detected early, the survival rate can exceed 70%.
Study participants must be at least 60, current or former smokers of a pack a day for 10 years or two packs a day for five.
Participants must be in good health with no prior cancer except nonmelanomic skin cancer.
The scan takes about three minutes, said Vivienne DeStefano, project coordinator at Maimonides, and the medical center offers transportation assistance. Smokers are offered support to quit.
After the scans are evaluated at Maimonides and Weill Medical College of Cornell University, participants and their doctors receive a report.
DeStefano said 1% to 2% of the nearly 5,000 people who have participated in the statewide study so far had been diagnosed with lung cancer.
"They might not have known if they hadn't participated because they were asymptomatic," she said.
Garnett, Morales and Dunbar all got good reports.
Dunbar said, "Even though I'm still smoking, I wanted to see how my lungs were doing. It was a relief to find out that everything was okay."
For information about participating in the study, call (866) NY-ELCAP or Maimonides Medical Center, (718) 283-6180.
This guy is smoking more than just tobacco if he thinks everything is OK, just because lung cancer wasn't detected. Cigarette smoking negatively affects a person's health in many predictable ways. He's in much worse health because he smokes.
You can use all the anecdotal "evidence" you want and you can spew all the Nanny Nazi propaganda you want (I noticed you are from California, home of the Nanny Nazis).
But considering that none of the statistical results of any of the so-called "studies" have ever gone through double-blind regression analysis, nor have the data been correlated, the stated results are flawed.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions are wrong. What it does mean is that other significant factors (such as genetics, environment and diet) have been ignored. Thus the commonly accepted thesis could be wrong and we will never know because the NIH, CDC and Public Health Service have, at least in this case, no interest in the truth, only in perpetuating their agenda.
It is no ones business if someone else drinks, smokes, or sky-dives. Let us start today to end the tyranny of the Nanny Nazis.
Consider yourself fortunate. All four of my grandparents and both my parents died from smoking related diseases. I'm a pathologist and diagnose smoking-related malignancies almost every day.
While it is true that the evidence supporting the danger of second-hand smoke is weak, it is also undeniably true that every smoker has loved ones who will grieve should he or she die unnecessarily young.
I dispute the second hand smoke studies, and agree that the government shouldn't tell anybody they can't smoke. I'm simply saying that anyone who tells himself that smoking ain't hurting him because he ain't dead yet is fooling himself, and needs to take personal responsibility for the consequences. .
As an aside, try to avoid the flaw of the liberals, which is to flame people based upon some preconceived notion. There are a number of conservatives living in California, including many Freepers. California is the home of the founder of Free Republic, you may recall.
I dispute the second hand smoke studies, and agree that the government shouldn't tell anybody they can't smoke. I'm simply saying that anyone who tells himself that smoking ain't hurting him because he ain't dead yet is fooling himself, and needs to take personal responsibility for the consequences. .
As an aside, try to avoid the flaw of the liberals, which is to flame people based upon some preconceived notion. There are a number of conservatives living in California, including many Freepers. California is the home of the founder of Free Republic, you may recall.
There is no such animal as "double blind regression analysis", unless the Magoos are taking a statistics course. A double blind study (in which neither the investigators nor the subjects know who's getting the active drug) refers to a controlled experiment, not an epidemiological study. "Nor have the data been correlated" is also gibberish.
Excuse me, how in the world would you know, do you know this man personally........ or is it just the nonsense the ANTI's feed you every day.
Are you diagnosing it as smoke related just because the person smokes, or have you taken other variables into account.......... smoke related is just too easy and simplistic.
I have news for you, I was in a badminton club for 5 years before anyone realized I was a smoker..... we just happened to be at the same party one night...... they were shocked I tell you, SHOCKED.
Such as "smoking is bad"?
OK, noted.
Just as we would grieve if they died from getting hit by a bus, car, stuffing their faces with junk, drinking themselves to death, taking recreational drugs, etc., etc., etc.
I'm a nurse..and I can tell you that I've seen way more diabetes, alcohol-related and drug-induced death in the past 18 years ...than I have smoking-related deaths. These cheesers are trying to legalize drugs and never say a peep to the alcohol and sugar industries... (except don't drink and drive) Hypocrisy at its best.
Maybe. Maybe not. The real point here (if you can take the blinders off for a moment) is that lung cancer was detected in only 1-2% of these smokers. How many people have ever heard such a small figure? Not many, I'd wager. A couple of years ago a pretty large study was done with the CT scan and came to the same conclusion, whereupon The Lancet opined--without anything to back up their conclusion, I might add--that the figure was "probably nearer 8% than 2%."
The FACTS are these: 98% of smokers do NOT get lung cancer; twice as many smokers never suffer a "smoking-related" illness as do; heart disease and other alleged "smoking-related" illnesses are multifactorial and blaming smoking alone is a corrupt use of science; many smokers--I come from a long line of them--remain active and healthy long past their expected lifespans; broad generalizations about someone you do not know do nothing but create dissent and defensiveness.
You don't like smoking? Fine. Don't smoke. You don't like smokers? Stay away from them. But don't speak of things you know less than nothing about as if they were gospel. They're not gospel, you're not the Lord and we're not buying.
I don't need studies to recognize an anti-freedom nannyist, either. I can look at someone's face and tell if they're a control freak: pinched face, scowling frown, frantically waving hands in front of face, not a laugh line in evidence, tight hairnet, shortness of tolerance and frequent bad manners, not to mention the horrific smell of bigotry they carry like a foul cloud.
Hey, not a flame. Just my humble opinion.
If you modified your statement to say "should be" rather than "is", I would agree. But, unfortunately, because of the socialist medical programs we have in this country, it still ultimately "is" our business. So, until we can jointly get those who engage is such behaviors to effectively waive their right to such free medical care, we still have to be concerned with self-destructive behavior that we have to pay for.
So, don't rant about your desire for cirrhosis of the liver and for lung cancer at my expense. And don't give me any of the "one thing at a time" stuff. Make the "one thing" getting your hand out of my pocket, then you can't sit on the corner slobbering on yourself and reeking of cigarette smoke.
(Gotta be the most mis-named person on this forum. Winston Churchill must be turning over in his grave.)
So, don't rant about your desire for cirrhosis of the liver and for lung cancer at my expense. And don't give me any of the "one thing at a time" stuff. Make the "one thing" getting your hand out of my pocket, then you can't sit on the corner slobbering on yourself and reeking of cigarette smoke.
And what if, as IS the case, I--and other smokers--pay more into the system than we ever use, thereby paying for YOUR bad habits? Are you, like Winnie, a bit "portly"? Get YOUR chubby fingers out of MY pocket!
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.