Somebody has to say it------I think Dana Reeves was offed!

1. She was 44.
2. She dies of lung cancer.
3. She never smoked.
4. She was a very outspoken advocate for stem cell research.

Could it be any more obvious? I smell conspiracies like pigs smell truffles.

Peace

Considering you current avvy, Dr Love

Back to the topic, WOW, she never smoked?
Well, I guess it's safe to say she never worked in a papermill or other places that cause lung disease. Was she exposed to anything that would cause cancer?
So, you gotta wonder.
This is a great conspiracy topic!!!

However, there's some evidence that young, non-smoking womena are contactig lungh cancer:

Ten percent to 15 percent of lung cancer victims are non-smokers. Among that group, women are two to three times more likely than men to get the disease. Doctors don't know why. Hormones, second-hand smoke, diet and air pollution all are believed to be factors.

abcnews.go.com...
(my emphasis)

And among young women smokers:

Recent research showed that a woman who smokes the same number of cigarettes as a man is twice as likely to develop lung cancer. The study from Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York suggested that the key to the double tumour risk lies in men having a greater ability to detoxify toxins and the presence of the female hormone oestrogen which is known to help cancers.

www.sundayherald.com...
I assume this would have an effect on women exposed to secondhand smoke, too.
(my emphasis)

[edit on 7-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

you might be on to something there

its reported that only 4 months ago she was doing fine
and the tumor was actually shrinking.
Dana was bucking the odds and getting nods of approval
from her docs and therapists....& then BAM !

but theres one thing that sends off my 'wary' alert....
its also reported that 1 in 5 of women who get lung cancer
have never even lit up a cigarette, i reckon that implies
they kept themselves away from 2nd hand smoke also.

which brings up the question of just where is the Tobacco
Companie$ Billion$ of dollar$ in fine$ going?
~Altria & RJR & whoever else is in the American Tobacco Industry
are footing like 100 Billion a year in payments to the citizens~

but it is documented that 20% of female lung cancers have another
cause for their malady...and its not tobacco smoke or juices or ingestion,
which we all have been led to believe was the cancer-causing agent.

an autopsy will be required, as the cancer was supposed to be in remission...it won't look good for her treatment specialists who were kinda caught unawares that Dana would be dead in 4 months despite positive prognosis.

No one thinks she "gave up" and secumbed to saddness over losing her husband who she obviously loved dearly.

You can give up the will to live and allow GOD to take you know at almost any moment. Its a matter of personal will and your desire to keep living that keeps you alive.

While a conspiracy or the emotional state of Mr Reeves could have caused her death, there is research that more women face the possibility of lung cancer than men.

In addition, non-smokers who develop lung cancer are two and a half times more likely to be female than male.

Dr Siegfried believes that the higher susceptibility of women to the adverse effects of tobacco could be associated with their higher levels of oestrogen.
~~~~~
Evidence for this comes from two studies which found a greater risk of lung cancer among women who underwent the menopause late in life, and those who had short menstrual cycles. In both cases oestrogen levels were higher than average.

Dr Siegfried believes the hormone may exacerbate the effects of exposure to tobacco smoke - and to other substances known to be linked to lung cancer such as the gas radon.

She said: "The concentration of sex hormones may influence not only the metabolism of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke but also may influence the growth rate of lung tumours."

news.bbc.co.uk...


Releted sources:
Women against lung cancer
clevelandclinicmeded
cancerfacts.com


[edit on 7-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

1 in 5 female lung cancers are in those who never smoked.

Stress can cause the body to break down and she was
definately under a lot of stress through the years.

When someone has a spouse die, and they are getting
along and are still in love, many times the surviving spouse
dies soon afterwards.

I wonder if she was exposed to anything while she was
taking care of her husband. Anything that could have caused
the cancer. Something we don't know about yet.

BUT ... I do find it strange that she was doing so well just
a few months ago with the tumor shrinking and now she
dies.

Yes. Even considering the factors I posted, I still do find it strange.

i can't even stand the whole "tumor shrinking" talk. my grandmother and step-mom both died of cancer after the doctors say "oh we got 100% of it". 6 months later they are dead. sickens me when you get a false sense of hope like that. i guess the lesson is that cancer being 100% gone is never a certainty.

Well she also had ovarian cancer and her mom died at 71 from complications of ovarian cancer surgery.
Seems it runs in the fam.

www.parade.com...

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Lanotom]

It seems she was riddled with cancer. She belonged to a non smoking family as well.

It wasnt smoke that killed her. She had a predesposition to this. :shk:

Originally posted by Lanotom
Well she also had ovarian cancer and ...

I'm not seeing that the article states she had ovarian cancer, too.

And, dgtempe, "riddled with cancer", do you have a link for that news?

Cancer runs in families...It appears she's had cancer or cancer scares before in other parts of her body.
:shk: I've seen it devaste my family.

DG,

I smoke a pack to a pack and a half of cigarettes a day, depending on schedule. Been doing it for over 40 years. However to put that in perspective, a well known author, who is also a smoker, once said, "a cigarette is hereby defined as a tube of paper, full of tobaccko, with fire at one end, and a fool at the other"...

My mother was 69 years old, and an on again, off again, smoker, more bordering on being thought of as an occasional smoker. She developed a lung tumor which metastasized to her spine and brain before she passed. The Lady who was in the next room, had exactly the same type of tumors, the same circumstance, and the same outcome, yet she had never smoked a day in her life.

I think it's terrible the way cancer can run through people... It runs in my family as well, so I have a large amount of empathy fory ou.

Originally posted by Dr Love
1. She was 44.
2. She dies of lung cancer.
3. She never smoked.
4. She was a very outspoken advocate for stem cell research.

Could it be any more obvious? I smell conspiracies like pigs smell truffles.

LOL! Wow that's all I need! Who do we string up? I hope no defense attorney ever makes the mistake of allowing you to sit on a jury judging his client.

Originally posted by notbuynit

Originally posted by Dr Love
1. She was 44.
2. She dies of lung cancer.
3. She never smoked.
4. She was a very outspoken advocate for stem cell research.

Could it be any more obvious? I smell conspiracies like pigs smell truffles.

LOL! Wow that's all I need! Who do we string up?

ROFLMAO!

Originally posted by notbuynit
I hope no defense attorney ever makes the mistake of allowing you to sit on a jury judging his client.

Hey, if I could prove it then it wouldn't be in the 'Skunk Works' forum.

I still think there was foul play involved.

Peace

I see your point yeah

But why would anyone do that ?

A woman has died. Her husband suffered before her. She leaves behind a 13 year old son. CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE HER IN PEACE!!!!!!!

Uh you could be right here but one problem, I thought the bad guys wanted stem cell research??

Only the nut bar Christians that believe in God are against stem cell research and we know they they don't run things

Andy Kaufman died of lung cancer and never smoked.

www.imdb.com...