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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
And still not a single person is responding to the original post.

Why is public health lying?

BTW - I am not "brave" - I am honest. There is a difference.

And what evidence does anyone have that I am a smoker?

Anything but address the original post

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I still smoke, but I think moderation is the key. I actually like the non-smoking laws in part, didn't at first, but long ago considered it selfish to see it otherwise. Whatever benefits possibly gained are outweighed by the simple fact that it's disrespectful to non-smokers to expect them to have to put up with it.

That being said, the government rules are very draconian and one-sided. They are a form of brain-washing, an attempt to ensure we have no positive mind on the matter to help our immune systems cope with potential dangers.

At first my view was that I didn't even mind the warnings on labels, they can be overlooked by us older folk, and still get the message across to kids not to start. Now I see another divisive concept actually at work. Society freely authorizes a licentious rebellious youth society with lack of controls over corporate policy that promotes drinking, sexual overtones on just about everything, disposable and temporary solutions that address only symptoms, instant gratification, etc. They encouraged a freedom-loving youth who tramples over all boundaries after their freedoms. Then they employ mechanisms such as overboard anti-smoking campaigns that actually result in a reverse psycology among youth. This has resulted in more youth smoking today than in the past decade according to the last stats I recall seeing. Then they pop up the price of smokes to outrageous prices, and the cost of nicotene gum/the patch etc. out of reach of many youths income.

The social divisiveness is the cause of much anger, labelling, and creates one more divide and conquer strategy from above. The moral elements of government campaigns are deeply in question, and smoking is the favourite scapegoat of their campaigns. Not car or factory pollution, which causes thousands of times the toxins in the air, nor the above-mentioned radioactivity, stone dust on work sites, chemtrails, etc which can cause lung cancers.

Once we hear the message, we get it government - we heard you, the first time. There's no need for any more awareness, it is truly just a collosal waste of money.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Northwarden

The original study had nothing whatsoever to do with smoking. The press release made it all about smoking. That is a lie!

Do you have an opinion on public health lying to the public "for their own good"

How do you feel knowing that HPV has been implicated with lung cancer for 30 years and that it might be a curable disease if the proper anti-viral agents are developed? To know that countless billions of dollars have been spent on anti-smoking propaganda instead of proper scientific research?

Did Westcoast's grandfather die of lung cancer or did he die because public health is not interested in curing lung cancer? If there was a cure or a vaccine for lung cancer - what would they scare the public with next?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Just in case anyone thinks that the lies of public health affect only smokers:

suburbanjournals.stltoday.com...

According to the Lung Cancer Alliance's website, though current smokers make up 35 to 40 percent of new lung cancer cases, more than 60 percent of new patients have never smoked or are former smokers, many of whom quit decades ago.


That is right - as the rate of smoking went down in the general population, the rate of lung cancer affecting never smokers went up. Lung cancer is now a never-smokers disease.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Northwarden

The original study had nothing whatsoever to do with smoking. The press release made it all about smoking. That is a lie!

Do you have an opinion on public health lying to the public "for their own good"


My opinions on the current health administrations couldn't be much lower.
They can't be trusted if their lives depended on it. Unfortunately, our lives do depend on it. Most drastic is Obamacare, Bill C-6 in Canada (now waiting for Senates rubber stamp) and what both of these spell out for our respective countries to link us to the Codex Alimentus, which intends to quash natural medicines.


How do you feel knowing that HPV has been implicated with lung cancer for 30 years and that it might be a curable disease if the proper anti-viral agents are developed? To know that countless billions of dollars have been spent on anti-smoking propaganda instead of proper scientific research?


More independant research needs to be done on it, then peer-edited, and released on secure sites that do not fall under the thumb of the hopelessly corrupted medical community. Then, unless studies suggest otherwise, legal action could be launched against the industry to prevent further misallocation of funds. People can also be alerted to the need to research proper cures, or linked to those which already exist.


Did Westcoast's grandfather die of lung cancer or did he die because public health is not interested in curing lung cancer? If there was a cure or a vaccine for lung cancer - what would they scare the public with next?

Tired of Control Freaks


My genuine sympathies. Every case is unique, and I'm uncomfortable to speak on any paricular case, especially when person in question no longer has a voice to explain their own story. As to the industry, it's very very clear to me that hospitals are in the pockets of corporate entities who care nothing for our health, beyond the point of allowing us to live long enough to make them some money. It's a range of balance. It's the low-bar on health they aim for, just as they aim for the lowest maintainable bar on culture, art, and morals. It's also up to us to recognize this and aspire higher, the challenge is that much greater thanks to their inept policies.
Depression and uncaring hang over our societies like vultures.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Northwarden

Your comments are extremely welcome - you got it!

Healthcare advocacy - like the anti-smoking campaign, the anti-obesity campaign and the anti-drinking campaign - has political support because it allows the government to 'Tax" people in unending fashion to recover health care costs for getting sick.

It also allows politicians to gain political points for "addressing a non-problem" by extending government control in our private lives.

It all starts with the anti-smoking campaign - but it doesn't end there.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
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


All smokers talk like this and then you can be like my dad who now has lung cancer and is in pain with little energy to even enjoy life. He would gladly give any of the time he spent smoking to instead spend it living without lung cancer and the strain it puts on a family.

So go back to denial. You smoke not really by choice because the addiction is so powerful. You say this because its easier to put up a front then it is to admit to yourself you cant quit.

You don't just die of cancer at 50. You will live in pain for awhile before that and your loved ones will live in pain during and after.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
whoshotjr:

And what do the never smokers do when they get lung cancer? Is it less painful for them? What do they regret? Do their families get angry at them?

I know you are angry at your dad for getting sick! You can blame smoking if you want to but this disease will never be conquered on the basis of lies from public health.

Everyone dies - even never smoking vegetarians with an exercise fetish and living to 100 isn't all its cracked up to be.

Instead of being angry with your dad, perhaps you should spend the time you have left on more pleasant conversations. No matter what you think - you know only two facts. Your dad smoked and your dad is dying of cancer. And you don't know if those two facts are related or not.

As a matter of fact - since lung cancer generally occurs to people in their sixties and seventies - this case is less likely to be related to smoking then you might think. Watch yourself - Being the son of someone who died of lung cancer puts you at high risk of the disease because of genetics.

You of all people should be hoping that it is a viral caused cancer and that some anti-viral agent could provide the cure.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
whoshotjr:

And what do the never smokers do when they get lung cancer? Is it less painful for them? What do they regret? Do their families get angry at them?

I know you are angry at your dad for getting sick! You can blame smoking if you want to but this disease will never be conquered on the basis of lies from public health.

Everyone dies - even never smoking vegetarians with an exercise fetish and living to 100 isn't all its cracked up to be.

Instead of being angry with your dad, perhaps you should spend the time you have left on more pleasant conversations. No matter what you think - you know only two facts. Your dad smoked and your dad is dying of cancer. And you don't know if those two facts are related or not.

As a matter of fact - since lung cancer generally occurs to people in their sixties and seventies - this case is less likely to be related to smoking then you might think. Watch yourself - Being the son of someone who died of lung cancer puts you at high risk of the disease because of genetics.

You of all people should be hoping that it is a viral caused cancer and that some anti-viral agent could provide the cure.

Tired of Control Freaks


If a non smoker gets lung cancer then that sucks. I was speaking of people who put themselves at risk and then try and just say they are ok with it. They are either telling lies to themselves or they are just ignorant and selfish.

I agree with you that there is many lies and secrets and mostly around not letting cures get out. Don't assume that I'm mad at my dad for smoking because I'm not. I do get mad however when people just ignore the effects of smoking or try and pretend to not care about what it will do to them. I hate all tobacco products, they are disgusting and just cause health care to be more expensive.

en.wikipedia.org...

87% of cases of lung cancer in north America are attributed to smoking. Why would you want to try and make it sound like smoking isn't bad for you?

Sure there is an agenda here and its money. They will get money from the people to get them to smoke and money from them when they try and quit. They will get money from the people when they are in the hospital dieing and a percentage of the cut when they die.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I am so glad you are not angry at your dad. Its must be devastating to be separated from your family when you are dying.

However, despite the information I have posted and the clear lie I have given as an example, you persist in repeating the information that smoking causes 87 % of lung cancers.

ARe you aware that smoking has been around for thousands of centuries? Are you aware that humans have always been exposed to the smoke of burning organics and that our respiratory system is designed to meet the challenge.

Are you aware of all the damage that has been caused by the anti-smoking campaign?

And most of all - if public health is capable of lying about smoking - what else are they capable of lying about and why in God's name would you trust anything they say?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join