It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Developing test to warn smokers of cancer danger

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Developing test to warn smokers of cancer danger


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – Scientists may have found a way to tell which smokers are at highest risk of developing lung cancer: measuring a telltale genetic change inside their windpipes.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
This is a prime example of the propaganda fostered by anti-smoking zealots.

If you were to read the story published in the press, you would draw the following conclusions:

1. That smoking causes genetic changes in the respiratory system that are indicative of a cancer developing in the future.
2. That only smokers have these genetic changes.

BUT - if you were to read the actual study that the article refers to, you would find the following:

1. The study does not mention the word smoking, smokers or tobacco even once!
2. The purpose of the study was to determine the genetic changes caused by exposure to viral agents (of which HPV is known to cause at least 25 % of all lung cancers just by itself. Never mind all the the other viruses under study.

vir.sgmjournals.org...
(do a pdf download to read the entire study.

And the proper conclusion that would be drawn from the study is that the CAUSE of lung cancer is exposure to viruses. This is the same CAUSE of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is another disease that until recently was blamed on smoking but is now known to be cause almost exclusively by the HPV virus!

My conclusion from this incident is that scientists already know that smoking is NOT the cause of lung cancer. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the rate of smoking in the population declined by 50 % in the 1970s but the incident rate of lung cancer almost 35 years later is still increasing.

Anti-smoking crusaders and public heath have spent billions in the quest to convince the public that smoking causes lung cancer. Billions that could have been better spent in research determining the true cause, better diagnostic techniques and treatment option.

BTW - the predominant characteric of people who choose to smoke is that smokers are more sociable and have more human contact. More human contact = more exposure to viruses that cause lung cancer. Hence, the explanation for the association between smoking and lung cancer!

Now isn't it strange that a study of the role of viruses as a cause of lung cancer became a "test to warn smokers of genetic changes". Was this mis-communication between what was going on in the laboratory and the press release deliberate?

Well of course it was - nobody funds research unless they have a vested interest. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz PhD, FRS, FRCP, FRCPath, FMedSci, was appointed Chief Executive of the MRC in October 2007.

Sir Leszek was knighted in the 2001 New Year’s Honours List for his research into developing vaccines, including a vaccine to prevent the development of cervical cancer.

The vaccine for cervical cancer ended up in the hands of private pharmaceutical interests despite the fact that the research and development was done with public money. Now how did that happen?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
As a smoker I must say that I know the risks and that I decide to take them... Everyone is afflicted with the same disease, it's called LIFE... No cure, no treatment, nobody gets out of it alive...

So whether it's by cancer at 50 or from dementia at 90, I will die someday... I live everyday knowing this, as if I will die the next, even though after my death I can't say "well I did this and didn't do that"...

Magnum



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Magnum

Are you not shocked about this evidence of propaganda and the depths that anti-smokers and public health will go to mislead the public?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Smoking is unhealthy, and can, and well kill you. You are ignorant to deny the fact that it causes lung cancer.

Making a theory that smokers are more sociable so they get viruses? Wow.
Viruses can cause cancer, but radioactivity, and thinks like smoke and all that junk that is in tobacco, not to mention the fillers, builds up in your lungs, and mutates your cells even more.

Do you seriously believe that there is any chance of it being good for you?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
What else can I say than that your complete post, IMO is total and utter BS.

Smoking was once claimed to have caused cervical cancer? Viruses are the leading cause of lung cancer? Smokers are at higher risk not because of the toxins they are putting into their lungs, but because they are more soicable? What planet are you from?


I seriously hope that no one out there is naive enough to believe this made-up garbage.

I work in the healthcare industry and I can tell you first hand that smoking DOES destroy your helath before taking your life. Asthma, emphyzemia, COPD and yes, lung cancer. My grandfather died from lung cancer....it is fast and relentless.

So you just keep on smoking, it is your right. Later (maybe not much), if something else doesn't get you first and you are sitting there all alone in front of your TV hooked up to your O2 bottle with your ever present cloud around your head, struggling for every breath you take and too tired to walk across the room to use the bathroom, you remember that it isn't that ciggarette sticking out of your mouth that's responsible but the HPV virus you picked up while you were being so 'social'.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
phlnx

Yes I honestly believe that smoking is good for me. This why:

1. Smokers irritate the respiratory system and produce an extra layer of mucous. Mucous is the means by which fine particulate matter is trapped before it can imbed in the lungs.

2. Nicotene, when oxidized (burned) turns into Vitamin B3. This vitamin is essential to the proper functioning of the human nervous system

3. Smokers are more likely to survive a heart attack due to the presence of Vitamin B3 and the increased ability to rebuild fine vascular networks (google Smoker's Paradox)

4. There are a number of diseases which afflict smokers less than non-smokers including Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome

5. There is currently a theory out there. Man has been exposed to smoke from the burning of organic material since time began (heating and cooking fires). Since we switched from heating our homes with coal and wood and began using natural gas and electricity, the incidence of asthma has increased 800 %. Guess who gets less asthma and when they do have asthma - get less severe attacks.

6. Smoking is used for wieght control. Notice how obesity has increased in lockstep with the decrease in smoking in the population.

7. It relaxes the mind and focuses concentration

8. It increases dopamine levels in the brain and creates feelings of pleasure that potentiates the pleasure of other activities (ie drinking coffee, alcohol and after eating a fine meal or having good sex).

How did this thread get to be about whether or not smoking is good for you? So you believe that it is alright for public health to lie to you for your own good?

Have you no comment on the fact that the press release DOES NOT even relate to the study it was purported commenting on?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


WEST COAST

You have completely avoided commenting on the article. Do you believe it is all right for public health to lie to adults?...for their own good?

So if I happen to interact with you in your role in health care, how will I know if you are telling me the truth or trying to scare me so that you can control my behavior? Am I child to be told to go to bed at a certain hour or the boogie man will get me?

You know thousands of people who have their live ruined by smoking? Please name three and provide absolute proof that smoking was the cause of their disease.

Does lung cancer look any different between a smoker or a non-smoker? How about asthma and COPD? How do you know what the CAUSE of the specific disease was?

Please name just three and provide your evidence.

And please provide your view of the integrity of a public health system that lies to the public for their own good?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Westcoast

You don't believe that it was once believed that smoking caused cervical cancer? Before someone found out that HPV causes cervical cancer?

Here is the proof?

www.cancer.org...

and another

organizedwisdom.com...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by westcoast
 


WEST COAST

You have completely avoided commenting on the article. Do you believe it is all right for public health to lie to adults?...for their own good?

So if I happen to interact with you in your role in health care, how will I know if you are telling me the truth or trying to scare me so that you can control my behavior? Am I child to be told to go to bed at a certain hour or the boogie man will get me?

You know thousands of people who have their live ruined by smoking? Please name three and provide absolute proof that smoking was the cause of their disease.

Does lung cancer look any different between a smoker or a non-smoker? How about asthma and COPD? How do you know what the CAUSE of the specific disease was?

Please name just three and provide your evidence.

And please provide your view of the integrity of a public health system that lies to the public for their own good?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


To be honest with you, you really tick me off and I am having a hard time justifying to myself spending this time to even respond AT ALL to you.

I did not comment on the study in your original OP because I think, in light of the other claims you are making, is beside the point. I could really care less what this study says and what you interpret that to mean.

It is quite obvious to me that you are a heavy smoker and are quite dillusional. You are desperate to convince yourself that it's good for you. Ya know what? Go for it. Smoke away, just don't do it around me or my family. Have fun.

No, I will not give you names and proof. Are you serious? I already told you my Grandfather died of it....that may not mean anything to you, but it does to me. He smoked for 40 years.

Can the doctors tell the difference between the different diseases? They sure as h@ll can. There are even specific tumors seen specifically in smokers....look it up.

EVERY single person I have EVER seen in the ER with COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) are SMOKERS. HELLO....it is a smokers disease!!!! You want ME to prove it to you? How about you go to any thousands of websites citing any number of thousands of studies about these diseases and the direct link to smoking? I am sure there thousands upon thousands of personal accounts on this thing we call the interenet of people (smokers) who are dying because of thier addiction.

You want ME to prove it to YOU? I don't need to. YOU need to wake up and stop spreading this garbage around.

Again, I hope there is nobody out there that believes ANY of this.

For anyone who wants IN YOUR FACE proof of what smaking does to you, visit an ER. It is occupied on any given day by a number of smokers. Visit a cancer ward in any hospital. Visit a cemetary.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Westcoast

You don't believe that it was once believed that smoking caused cervical cancer? Before someone found out that HPV causes cervical cancer?

Here is the proof?

www.cancer.org...

and another

organizedwisdom.com...

Tired of Control Freaks


This is my last point.

Okay....so when you go to the first linked website it explains that he greatest cause/risk for cervical cancer is the HPV virus and goes on to explain in detail how/why that is. (I will spare you the details).

AFTER all of that, it has this:


Women who smoke are about twice as likely as non-smokers to get cervical cancer. Smoking exposes the body to many cancer-causing chemicals that affect organs other than the lungs. These harmful substances are absorbed through the lungs and carried in the bloodstream throughout the body. Tobacco by-products have been found in the cervical mucus of women who smoke. Researchers believe that these substances damage the DNA of cervix cells and may contribute to the development of cervical cancer. xt


This is a good example of how you take good info and twist it around to suit your need. This simply states that women who smoke are twice as likely to get it. It then explains WHY. This is true with ANY cancer. They no where says it causes it....HPV does. Smoking simply increases the risk.

How old are you? Do you really understand what you are saying?

I'm done. Let's let this thread quietly......go......away......



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
phlnx

Yes I honestly believe that smoking is good for me. This why:

1. Smokers irritate the respiratory system and produce an extra layer of mucous. Mucous is the means by which fine particulate matter is trapped before it can embed in the lungs.


It is not good to constantly have mucous. It causes a chance of chocking and dieing (not to mention pneumonia), and it also allows things to build up in it.


2. Nicotene, when oxidized (burned) turns into Vitamin B3. This vitamin is essential to the proper functioning of the human nervous system.

oxidizing is not the same as burning. Oxidizing can happen in many ways, but never have i seen metal start rusting due to it getting burned. Burning taxes away oxygen, and causes carbon dioxide, that's why suffocation is caused in fires.


3. Smokers are more likely to survive a heart attack due to the presence of Vitamin B3 and the increased ability to rebuild fine vascular networks (google Smoker's Paradox)


I will not argue this point. This actually has some valid points.


4. There are a number of diseases which afflict smokers less than non-smokers including Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome


Link please?


5. There is currently a theory out there. Man has been exposed to smoke from the burning of organic material since time began (heating and cooking fires). Since we switched from heating our homes with coal and wood and began using natural gas and electricity, the incidence of asthma has increased 800 %. Guess who gets less asthma and when they do have asthma - get less severe attacks.
Guess who also has a decreased risk of Asthma? People who work on farms, who are also usually smokers. They get outside in the hay, and work outside.

6. Smoking is used for weight control. Notice how obesity has increased in lockstep with the decrease in smoking in the population.
Ya, because it lowers metabolism, which doesn't mean you are healthy, it just means you are skinny.



8. It increases dopamine levels in the brain and creates feelings of pleasure that potentiates the pleasure of other activities (ie drinking coffee, alcohol and after eating a fine meal or having good sex).

This can also be gotten through meditation.


How did this thread get to be about whether or not smoking is good for you?

You started it.



How many packs a day do you smoke, by the way?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Everyone knows smoking is bad for you and could possibly cause an illness that can kill you.

You have to be a complete moron to dispute that.

But, non smokers or anti smokers need to take a step back and chill out. As long as they are not being affected by joe dirt smoking in his own home then leave him to it.

I'm tired of the commercials, billboards, magazine adds, newspaper adds and pamphlets being forced onto me every single day.

You want to do something useful to get people to stop smoking?

Use that propaganda money and make it to where smokers who want to quit dont have to pay 30 plus dollars for nicotine gum. They don't have to pay to see a doctor to see what their best route to taking is.

In other words, shut up and actually do something to help instead of pissing people off.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Nice a smoking discussion.

This is a recent thread of mine where I offer a major conspiracy left open to debunk.


Quite big if it is true. But it hardly gets any attention and nobody takes the trouble to debunk anything.

If your interested.
Smoking isn't bad for your health at all ?

The evidence is waiting.

Edit.
I'm a little dissapointed you didn't ad a link to my thread Tiredofcontrolfreak. It's still very recent.

No reason to get worked up over it tho. I'm happy this topic is out there again.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
So let me start with explaining my theory.

Smoking if you have some common sense will damage your lungs IF you smoke to much. There is not a single article that will tell you what smoking will cause if you only smoke 2 cigs a day or 5.

The amount of cigs they use are 10, 15 or even 20.
Crapspaghetti. Everything ( even water ) will kill you if take to much of it.

So what do we know.
Smoking kills. Apparently there has not been done a single research proofs smoking causes lung cancer because every study studied the a specific group of people. But not once there was a control group. Or long term study.

The fact is just as many people die from lung cancer that didn't smoke as people that did. Their are some types of lung cancer which are genetic an some types which are caused by another toxic substance all together.

There has not been a study on the people that smoked if they would have had cancer if they didn't smoke.

If you have anything that is connected with the respiratory system and you smoke. Guess what. You died from smoking.

The fact is there have been dozens of nuclear tests. Those little pieces of dust, radioactive waste are in our atmosphere taken by the wind and a minuscule piece of it in your lungs will devellop cancer. You will die get buried. After years you will be digged up again to make way for others or even a new suburb. That tiny spec of dust will be there waiting to be taken up by the wind and start the process again.

There are millions of those pieces in hour atmosphere. If it are not billions.

Air pollution. It's funny how respiratory illness and lung cancer statistics show a huge increase in urban area's. The big city is home to far more cars and everything else what can cause you to get sick.
Yet the amount of people smoking is no different from what they are in the country side.

Asbestos particles will imbed your lungs and lay dormit for even 30 years before you develop lung cancer.

The claim is even made that smoking ( a little ) will already cause a thin layer of mucus to form on your lungs.

This is not bad at all. That layer of mucus will save your life because it will prevent nasty secs of anything to imbed in your lungs. Instead you will cough it up or swallow it.

Way deeper in the rabbit whole is a told this protective layer is preventing the chem trail particles to have an effect on you and so they can not remote control your body which will only be possible if you have enough of that chem trail in your body.

You can read more right here. The anti smoking conspiracy thread

This is a great article wihich offers a big conspiracy.
Lets try to get to the bottom of it. Its just weird it's not a widly discussed topic.
Especially because if it's true the consequences are huge. S & F



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well I hear a lot of people yelling how smoking is bad for me but I see no proof.

Westcoast - Your grandfather died of lung cancer - well so do non-smokers. And no - there is no way of specifying the CAUSE of the disease.

As a matter of fact - there is no smoker's disease. No disease that is specific to only smoker's. Never smokers get the exact same disease. See the testimoney of experts - 3 for and 3 against in McTear vs Imperial Tobacco.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

You tell me that hundred's of thousands die of smoking but the only evidence you provide is because YOU SAY SO!

Westcoast - you are EXACTLY the kind of health care provider who should be avoided at all costs. Any advice you provide is suspect. You don't work for the patient - you work to control the behavior of others with absolutely no respect for how they wish to live their lives.

Further - we know that cervical cancer is caused by HPV - what does smoking have to do with viral infections? How does smoking increase risk and exactly - and please be very very clear on this little jump in logic - how does increased risk CAUSE a disease.


Each cigarette smoked provides the smoker with approximately 0.0138 mg of nicotenic acid (Vitamin B3)

www.wispofsmoke.net...

And not one of you are explain to rationalize or explain how a study regarding the effect of various viral infections became "a diagnostic test for smokers" in the path between the laboratory and the press.

Bash me all you want - the fact is that all of you are trying to take attention away from the facts and evidence in the original post. Public Health is lying to the public - now how do any of YOU know what the truth is?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Here is some information about HPV and lung cancer. Apparantly the link has been strongly suggested since 1979. What is that that public health says? 90 % of all lung cancer is caused by smoking?

Well I don't know about you folks but 100 % - 25 % caused by HPV is NOT 90 %.

lungcancer.about.com...

And to be honest - I don't believe the HPV causes only 25 % of lung cancers. There have been other studies done where the HPV virus was found in 85 % of the lung tumors studied.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Notice that none of the studies include any information about the patients being studied and their smoking status. That is because HPV is being found in the lung tumors of smokers and non-smokers alike.

And there are still another 40 known causes of lung cancer other than smoking.

So Westcoast - what does this do to the theory that it is ok to lie to the public if it is "for their own good".

Smokers have suffered tremondously under the anti-smoking regime of public health - they have been denied jobs, denied places to socialize, denied places to live, some have frozen to death trying to smoke outside and others have been raped and killed and beaten while outside and beyond the protection of bouncers.

Open your mind Westcoast - what if smoking does NOT cause lung cancer (or any other disease) and the lies have actually harmed millions of people (for their own good of course)

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

Developing test to warn smokers of cancer danger




All you need is for smokers to wear a smoke detector on their silly heads.

When it flashes and goes goes "beep beep" it would then warn smokers of cancer danger.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


TiredofControlFreaks.....

I must give you 10 out of 10 for bravery for establishing a thread to advocate smoking.

It is commendable that you have tried to offer some level of debate regarding this topic.

I hope you can finally manage to give up smoking one day.

I know it's extremely difficult, but it's definitely worth the effort


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
IN OTHER NEWS: Marijuana leads to Sex Parties, Jazz Music and insubordination to superiors. Also when you smoke pot you are supporting terrorism!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join