They Lied! Smoking does not cause oral-pharangeal cancers!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



Wrabbit2000

I sympathize with your loss, really I do. My mother died of breast cancer. she smoked. Read the surgeon general report. There is no association between breast cancer and smoking.

Are you tryng to pretend that your loss is worse then mine because it may have been related to smoking?

Just what is your point here? there is no way of telling what caused a lung cancer anymore than there is a way of telling what caused an oral-pharangeal cancer. You don't know what caused your father's cancer.

As to the risks that smokers take? Well all I can tell you is that life is a risk and there are many many causes of death. Shall we start taking control of minutia of everybody's life? You can't ride a motorcycle or climb a mountain because you might die? Don't eat that bacon! And you will, by law, be rquired to exercise for at least an hour a day.

I can only quote Mark Twain to you: Don't hand me your moralistic statistics. You don't know what brings pleasure to my life and what I consider important enough to take the risks for. You don't know what makes my life worth living!

For right now - because of lies and statistics, I have been demonized and insulted, isolated from society. I am denied anyplace to socialize with my friends, mental patients, senior citizens and the poor have been denied treatment and a place to live where they feel comfortable. People have been out and out killed by so-called smoking treatments, people have been denied the right to raise children and for standard medical treatments that are offered to others and have been financially raped.

Public Health and the government rightfully informed the public of the risks of smoking. They crossed over the line when they undertook actions to force smokers to quit.

Tied of Control freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'm not trying to compare losses like it's a sports game. :shk:

I'm somewhat surprised by the depth of it here, but I'm saying your "Facts" in more than one case on this thread are outright, provably inaccurate and wildly off base. Not even close enough, in my opinion, to call a casual misunderstanding of the original source?

It reminds me of a debate I had with someone here months ago who claimed to the end, despite reams of original studies by the end of it, that Lung Cancer and Smoking were not related in killing people. Smokers sometimes go to ANY lengths to justify more of what is killing them. It's something to see....and something I never noticed until I quit myself. It's sure a real phenomenon though.

reply to post by AshleyD


Supermoderator

Everything I have quoted comes from the anti-smokers. You want to call it propaganda. Go ahead, so do I.

So now I ask you the question:

If oral-pharangeal cancers are caused by or related to or associated with tobacco - why is it increasing when the rate of smoking has been decreasing for 60 years? These are the facts. They are not my facts. They are the facts of the medical community.

Is oral sex new? Is the HPV virus brand new?

Is it possible, just possible, that everything was unjustly blamed on smoking?

Tired of control Frekas

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You are comparing the comfort of a smoker (his need to fuel his addiction) versus the need of someone else to try to stay healthy and be able to breathe. Your comparison is flawed because only an insane person would argue in favor of the comfort of the smoker.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit2000

We are not debating. YOu have not provided ANY facts to support your point of view.

Please, if you can find any evidence of any of the following, provide it!

1. There is more oral-pharangeal cancer because there is more oral sex today than 30 years ago
2. The incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is not rising
3. The incidence of tobacco use in men HAS NOT decreased in the last 60 years.
4. There is now proof that smoking caused oral-pharangeal cancer and its not just an "inferred relationship"
5. The HPV virus strain that causes oral-pharangeal cancer is brand new and didn't exist 30 years ago
6. That never smokers NEVER get oral-pharangeal cancer and that is a disease that ONLY occurs in smokers because tobacco works synergistically with HPV.

Remember the experience of cervical cancer. It was CAUSED by smoking. We now know that it is NOT caused by smoking. Its CAUSED by HPV

Remember how smoking was the CAUSE of peptic ulcers - that is until they found the H. Pylori bacterium that is the actual CAUSE of peptic ulcers.

That smoking CAUSED asthma - until they realized that as the smoking rate went down in the population, the asthma rate was soaring.

I could give more examples but you I am sure you get my drift.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Entirely agreed here. I could and did see the Smoker's side of things...especially since I was one...until the health issues started being clarified. Then the 90's case against big Tobacco and we all saw, in clear terms,. the health issues were not only real but the cold bastards had KNOWN about it as far back as the 1950's. They didn't care that people like me started smoking in the late 80's as kids when hell?

People still smoked on airplanes, buses and I recall putting cigarettes out in the grocery store by stepping on them, on the floors. Next to the dozens of other butts, likewise dropped and stepped on. Different world by orders of magnitude, wasn't it?

Now the health connections are known as near certain cause/effect for at least ONE cause of some of the worst health conditions one can see to die from. Doubts come in how MANY smokers fall to dying in one cause or another. It isn't IF they do. It's amazing to me that folks can still mount a defense to it. These days?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Krazysh0t

Who says I am favoring smokers over non-smokers?

Why can't a smoker have places to socialize the same as non-smokers? How can ventilation render environments that would usually kill a human being (mines, toll booths exposed to vehicle exhaust, workplace with hazardous airborne chemicals in the air) be sufficient to protect workers but be insufficient to protect non-smokers?

Is second hand smoke really more hazardous than sarin gas? Afterall, anti-smokers say that there is no "safe" level of exposure to second hand smoke but the materials safety data sheets for sarin gas do list a safe level of exposure to sarin gas.

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


While I mostly agree with your post, I had to chime in that I quit smoking in Feburary. Cold turkey. No help from anyone; in fact my wife made it worse for me by not even believing that I had quit. She berated me and said I can't claim to have quit after only a few weeks. It made me want to smoke worse than anything else in my life, ever.

Well that was in February. I still haven't smoked. My will isn't particularly strong, I'm not special in any way. I simply made a promise to quit, and I held myself to it. Addiction is a huge battle, but try not to dissuade anyone from quitting "cold turkey". It can be done, 5% success rate or not (I tend not to believe that stat). Just be part of the 5%.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks



Tired.. Okay. If we aren't' debating..then please do support just one fact you stated as a given and solid statistic. You said 58% of people quitting cold turkey from smoking tobacco succeed in their effort.

Most smokers quit all by themselves, cold turkey, with a 58 % success rate, when they decide it is time to do so. Some as mid-aged adults when they begin to have children and many more in the 60s when smoking is no longer as social a thing as it used to be.

I'll just point to that one fact to make it easy. You wrote the OP here. You made the statement here. The burden of proof and support is yours to fulfill to be taken seriously here. In my humble opinion, of course.

Support and source just that ONE claim, perhaps?

Yup, it doesn't cause oral-pharyngeal cancers, it only causes others 999,347,648,334 Cancers and a charcoal lungs.

There is no conspiracy, just take biology and find the effects. Pry open heavy smokers and compare them with non smokers.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


First of all Wrabbit2000, I have made NOT claims. I quoted a newspaper article about the increase in oral-pharangeal cancer. In fact, I quoted several sources. This is NOT MY claim.

I quoted the Surgeon General. Again - this is NOT MY CLAIM. This is the Surgeon General.

Are you disputing the fact that the anti-smoking propaganda has been successful in reducing the incidence of smoking? Here is link:

cancercontrol.cancer.gov...

You will see that smoking peaked in the 1960s and then began falling. there is a huge paper about it.

You will also note that smoking cessation aids were not available until the 1980s. All those people quit smoking just because they wanted to and just did it "cold turkey"

Here is a link to the success rate of the "cold turkey" method

whyquit.com...

Its states "90 % of smokers quit cold turkey"

Now how about if you support some claim, preferable to keep this debate on track:

Is oral sex new? Is HPV new? Is the incident rate of oral-pharangeal cancer rising in the face of decreased smoking? waht do you conclude from these facts?

Tired of control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

 

Are you honestly going to argue that HPV is new?

Neither you nor I know of the historical rate of HPV vs modern rates.

oral sex is new?

I challenge you to provide a source which states "oral sex is new" in reference to this issue. It's not that it's "new", it's that the social stigma/taboo has been lifted in recent decades. It's certainly being performed more often these years than, say, 50 years ago.

and that the increase in oral-pharangeal cancers is occuring in young people and is completely different than oral-pharangeal cancers caused by smoking?

I'm not sure how to make sense of this sentence. Please clarify.

I believe Sir and I make it very clear that I acknowledged that the Surgeon General was saying that tobacco might work synergistically with HPV to cause oral-pharangeal cancer.

Then why the absolutes which seem to imply otherwise. Please clarify your position. As is, you're not making much sense.

reply to post by luciddream


Lucid Dream

There have been too many disease attributed to smoking that have been later found to have been caused by something else.

Pry open a smoker and you will find exactly what you find when you pry open a non-smoker. So much so that the lungs of smokers are transplanted to non-smokers.

news.yahoo.com...

If you can't find a physical difference in the lungs, what evidence do you have that they would find it anywhere else?

If they lied about oral-pharangeal cancer...you know, the one that is graphically pictured on every cigarette pack...whyever would you believe smoking causes any other disease. Afterall, it was orall-pharangeal and lung cancer that they had the most evidence for?


Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by luciddream

 

Lucid Dream

There have been too many disease attributed to smoking that have been later found to have been caused by something else.

You are showing a logical fallacy. That one thing may cause a cancer, in no way means that the first is not also causing the same type of cancer. Very easy logic that you are failing at over and over again.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


Please provide evidence that oral sex is performed anymore today than it was a 100 years ago?

Science did not "discover" HPV. The virus was always there. What has been discovered is that there is more than 100 strains of HPV identified. Only a few strains of HPV cause cancer. The race is now on to discover which strains cause which types of cancer.

For your third question. In my original post, I specifically talked about and mentioned that the Surgeon General believed that there might be a synergistic effect between tobacco and HPV that causes cancer. However, I also discussed that this was pure speculation. There is absolutely no evidence of the synergystic effect.


Everybody carries the HPV virus. Not everybody carries the particular strain of HPV that causes cancer. Does it make sense to you that people who socialize together also have sex together and they just might be passing the strain of HPV that causes cancer to each other?

Smokers hang with smokers generally. And it is smokers who tend to be more social and take more risks and that includes saying yes to sex differently than non-smokers are likely to.

Compare in your mind: What are your chances of sex with a partner who is social and risk taker compared to someone who is not as social and less of risk taker.

Tired of control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I hadn't asked for a history of the topic. If we get far enough in dealing with facts, I still have a directory full of studies and research papers into the 1950's which came out of the 90's lawsuit and more since to establish the medical side of factual here.

I simply asked for one thing. Just one. You stated, again, 58% of people who attempt quitting by cold turkey method succeed. You said this in context to smoking not being truly addictive.

I'm only asking for that ONE statistic to be sourced or supported...since it was your own statement making it as a factual one. I could nitpick all your factual errors and inaccuracies here but I only choose the one to keep it simple and easy.

So, again, can you or can you not support the 58% success statistic you quoted yourself? ...or are your facts and figures here just pulled out of the air because they sound good for your side of the discussion? That's really what asking for proof on THAT claim is about, in the end. Are you credible or not?

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


Thank you - you are correct. However, what it does show is that Correlation (as established by epidimiology) DOES NOT equal CAUSATION.

The evidence that smoking CAUSES any disease is not as established as anti-smoking would like the public to believe.

For example: It is thought that a bacteria CAUSES smallpox. Control the spread of that particular bacteria and the incidence of the disease drops. Although you don't know exactly HOW the bacteria causes pneumonia, you can infer that the bacteria is actually the cause. You have proof positive if people who are NEVER exposed to the bacteria, NEVER get smallpox.

In this case, scientists don't know HOW smoking causes oral-pharangeal cancer, however, epidimiology shows that more smokers get it than non-smokers. This is suggestive but not proof because the question then is...well why does it occur in non-smokers. But now you reduce exposure to smoking and the disease not only DOESN'T DECREASE, no no no. The incidence of the disease actually INCREASES.

Now what do those facts suggest?

Tired of Control freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by QuantriQueptidez

 

Please provide evidence that oral sex is performed anymore today than it was a 100 years ago?

Common sense, bro. If you're going to ask for evidence after I already asked for evidence, then backpeddle, then I'm going to flip it on you one last time and deuce out.

Everybody carries the HPV virus. Not everybody carries the particular strain of HPV that causes cancer. Does it make sense to you that people who socialize together also have sex together and they just might be passing the strain of HPV that causes cancer to each other?

Don't you think it would be rather easy to verify that specific strains of HPV are, or are not involved in every case of these cancers which smokers get? You seriously think it's so easy as being solely HPV, with known carcinogens, from cigarette smoking, not causing a synergistic effect? Seriously? For realz? GTFO of here.

Smokers hang with smokers generally. And it is smokers who tend to be more social and take more risks and that includes saying yes to sex differently than non-smokers are likely to.

There are so many mindless assumptions here. Just no, man. No.

Compare in your mind: What are your chances of sex with a partner who is social and risk taker compared to someone who is not as social and less of risk taker.

Tired of control Freaks

Compare in your mind: Someone who is ignorant enough to think that a disproportionate amount of people who are "social and risk taker" are smokers. Imagine a picture of this guy. What do you see? I see a jackass that doesn't hang out in the right places to get a broad view of adventurous, social life.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit2000

I looked but I have been unable to find the exact paper that showed a 58 % success rate with cold turkey method.

I did however, find this one which shows 77 % success rate. Will that do? You understand, of course, that different studies have slightly different results.

www.healthcommunities.com...

The cold turkey success rate among 2,207 former smokers and 928 current smokers who reported to their general practitioners during 2002 and 2003 was 77 percent, compared to 23 percent for bupropion, although it declined somewhat over time.

I am disappointed that you could not see from the former link I provided that the steepest decrease in the rate of smoking occurred during a time when there were no smoking cessation aids available and cold turkey was all anybody had available.

I am also very very disappointed that your idea of debate involves failing to provide any thoughts, comments or research of your own.

I have reported a number of facts from credible sources. From these sources, the upshot is:

oral-pharange cancer is up, smoking is down and has been for decades
oral sex is not new
HPV is not new
HPV is the CAUSATIVE organism for the disease
They are trying to disguise the fact that smoking does not CAUSE oral-pharangeal cancer. They have no proof of any such relationship as at the time the studies were done, nobody was looking to identify HPV infected people.

NO ONE has responded in any way shape or form with anything other than "smoking is bad". Is smoking because it causes oral-pharangeal cancer or is it bad because someone says so without any proof of their contention whatsoever?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Okay, so you admit you used a major statistic to back a major point of your assertions with no idea where it could be supported, let alone having support available? That confirmed what I figured was happening here but confirmation is important while assumptions are poor form.

Another study, published in 2006 in Addictive Behaviors, involved Australian smokers and ex-smokers. Quitting methods included NRT (such as gums and lozenges), pharmaceuticals like bupropion (commonly known as Zyban or Wellbutrin) and the cold turkey method. The cold turkey success rate among 2,207 former smokers and 928 current smokers who reported to their general practitioners during 2002 and 2003 was 77 percent, compared to 23 percent for bupropion, although it declined somewhat over time.

Yes... That's from your link. So it's not just over half who quit cold turkey have success now, it's over 3/4's?? What's next? 99% of those who quit without help, succeed?? Your first number was crap and without basis...so you throw an even HIGHER one to replace it? That's nuts.

Please notice the area I emphasized above though. That was entirely SELF-REPORTED. That's not a study, it's a survey that kept past records for comparison. :shk:

I'll assume you actually have no solid, sourced data to support the claim that Tobacco is not addictive then. I'm glad I didn't waste too much time here to discover how little you're basing your points on in this thread.