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

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


Great debate technique there - its called Ad hominum. Its means you don't deal with the facts, you attack the person presenting the facts.

It doesn't work.

I have provided all kinds of links and studies. You have provided none. Please provide the study that shows that tobacco acts synergistcally with HPV and then explain why never-smokers get oral-pharangeal cancer as well

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Oh Wrabbit2000

Now you are just providing a distraction away from the REAL debate. Unless there is a scientist outthere who conducted a study that involved puting smokers in a jail cell for a year...then ALL the statistics are useless because the half-life of cotine isn't that long. A smoker would just have to lay off the smokes for a week before seeing the scientist and then lie about quitting.

This debate is not about quitting methods. The paper I provided proves that the steepest decline in smoking happened BEFORE smoking cessations aids became available.

And for some reason - you keep saying that I am claiming something. I am not. I am merely reporting what the medical community and the surgeon general is saying.

And you keep ignoring it. Obviously, you don't wish to consider the facts. Funny thing though. You can bring every study going back to the 1950s. Hell - go back more than 100 years if you want to.

But here is the thing about studies. They are LIMITED. They don't always reflect the real world.

FACTS in the REAL WORLD

1. The incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is RISING
2. The incidence of smoking has been decreasing for decades
3. Oral sex is not new (not to mention that HPV can be contracted by kissing by the way)
4. HPV is not a 'new" virus

These are not MY facts. These are the facts of the medical community. Go ahead, find a study that proves that these facts are NOT true

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


What are you talking about? if you have to smoke, you go outside. You stand around with the other smokers, socialize and smoke. When you are done, you come back inside and continue to socialize. What is the problem? Is being outside some sort of affliction for you?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Oh Wrabbit2000

Now you are just providing a distraction away from the REAL debate.

The real debate has nowhere to go and nothing to discuss if the OP and sources for fact presented by you are not credible. I took one stat from your many quoted ones. You dedicated a post to stating Tobacco isn't addictive. So, that was a perfectly fair one to isolate on the purpose of establishing your methods and hence,. credibility to keep debating with.

This debate is not about quitting methods. The paper I provided proves that the steepest decline in smoking happened BEFORE smoking cessations aids became available.

I didn't claim smoking wasn't addictive and use 58% rates of cold turkey success to support the point. You did.

And for some reason - you keep saying that I am claiming something. I am not. I am merely reporting what the medical community and the surgeon general is saying.

When you make a statement in a post that is of a factual nature (A statistic is, on it's face, a fact. It exists or it doesn't. It can be supported or it cannot be. Nothing subjective about it) and you haven't attributed that fact to someone else as the 3rd party source? YOU are then making the statement. Presumably by your own research, education from that and grasp of the facts over all. That is how it's said YOU claimed ...vs.. a sourced quote.

And you keep ignoring it. Obviously, you don't wish to consider the facts. Funny thing though. You can bring every study going back to the 1950s. Hell - go back more than 100 years if you want to.

I find the whole thread to be disingenuous. Not that it cannot BE true, perhaps. However, it's contradicting accepted medical knowledge. So, the burden of disproving conventional wisdom is on you....not everyone else to prove otherwise.

Challenge common knowledge? Then show how it's commonly wrong ...and the more solid the challenge, the steeper the burden of proof. That shouldn't be hard to work with.

But here is the thing about studies. They are LIMITED. They don't always reflect the real world.

FACTS in the REAL WORLD

1. The incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is RISING
2. The incidence of smoking has been decreasing for decades
3. Oral sex is not new (not to mention that HPV can be contracted by kissing by the way)
4. HPV is not a 'new" virus

These are not MY facts. These are the facts of the medical community. Go ahead, find a study that proves that these facts are NOT true

Tired of Control Freaks

I've already caught you in a lie on this thread. (The 58% you pulled out of thin air) The burden of proving the above facts wrong in either raw numbers or causation isn't on me or anyone else. It's on you to prove beyond the reasonable doubts of your audience. It's on the OP to show that a story is, in fact, correct in the face of medical data which says otherwise.

So far, that burden of proof seems woefully short of being met ...to be as generous as I can possibly be in stretching terms on something. Sadly, it's on a topic people are still getting sick and dying from on a daily basis.

Wrabbit2000

You are basing your debate entirely upon the credibility of my sources, based presumably on a statistic I read somewhere but can't remember where?

So the Surgeon General is NOT credible and the medical community is NOT credible? (I didn't realize how easy it was to damage the credibility of the medical community?

Do you have a single credibile source to show the oral-pharangeal cancer is NOT rising or that smoking is NOT decreasing?

If so - please feel free to produce it?

Lets get back to the topic at hand

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Here is some "facts" for you WRABBIT2000

www.cdc.gov...

what does it say - 63 % of oral-pharangeal cancers are now caused by HPV as shown by actual cell examination? Of course, this is only for those strains of HPV now known to cause oral-pharanygeal cancers. There may as yet be more hitherto unidentified strains.

Tired of control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'm actually through with the debate, and I'm simply clarifying something here in this post.

I don't automatically dispute your every source for credibility. That isn't fair without judging each source, on it's own. It's that you have stated factual things in this thread with *NO* source and, when pressed, shown to have no source in mind, let alone available. Hence... You fabricated a major point you've made.

So, 9 out of 10 sources from this point forward could be 100% dead on precise....and I don't much care. After you actually came back to support your poorly chosen method citing "facts", rather than admit the goof and move on...it means I'd have to vet all 10 of your sources to be sure I found the ONE I can now be sure is in there for at least one example,. completely devoid of credibility. That's 10 efforts beyond worthwhile for a posted story.

In other words... When someone fabricates the small stuff and sideline issues, how can anyone ever believe them on the core points? At the very least, sincerity and integrity is shown to be in question. Heck...Nothing much you can do at this point restores that here, either. So, you take care on your thread and I hope you adjust debate styles as time goes on. Indeed.

(I've been wrong, BTW...and I've been guilty of getting a bit loose with numbers a time or two. I get called on it and I admit it. However crappy I feel and/or look. Many others do as well. That's the difference, to address a follow-on point I can almost hear coming.)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


right back at you Wrabbit2000

and I quote "When someone fabricates the small stuff and sideline issues, how can anyone ever believe them on the core points? "

You never made any attempt to discuss, debate, verify or anything on my original post. YOu chose to distract instead. I brought forward sources showing that cold turkey was the most successful quit method and you still chose to disregard it.

How can I believe that you in any way shape or form considered my original post.

Another anti-smoker who just doesn't wish to recognise or accept responsibility for their actions.

Tired of control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

You never made any attempt to discuss, debate, verify or anything on my original post. YOu chose to distract instead. I brought forward sources showing that cold turkey was the most successful quit method and you still chose to disregard it.

No, I didn't. You made fantastic claims you can see no one else much believed either and I sought to establish your methods and integrity in presenting data. I did it beyond my satisfaction or what I thought would be accomplished by it.

I chose to participate on this thread because people claiming Smoking is somehow less harmful than it is are personally offensive to me, especially when those claims come with all the support of a fortune teller at a carnival. ( a little truth mixed with a little lie and all spun in self-serving personal interpretation. Just like a fortune teller functions)

- - - - -

Stop falling for the bull#. You are NOT an addict. You can quit anytime you choose. Its simply that right now, you really don't want to!

That was one of your statements in this thread to another member. It's not simply wrong, it's aggressive to the point of combative with information so dangerously wrong, it can actually HARM ...not just harmlessly misinform others. (As *PROVEN* by medical facts as well as self admission by the Tobacco companies in the big 90's super-suit against them. You've been over that material, of course....right? )

- - - - -

Please... Stop before going deeper into spreading bad info that can actually support people doing things that will quite possibly lead directly to their own death. It's not funny...It's reckless.

(This is my last note BTW.. Have a good thread)

He's personality disordered, and incapable of having an honest debate.

No use in trying to reason with someone this warped in the mind 

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Good thread I tend to agree with your assessment of the information presented.

Thanks for being willing to challenge the beliefs of our modern religion.

And yes, the way people believe in these things is just like religion. Faith based and all that.

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
He's personality disordered, and incapable of having an honest debate.

No use in trying to reason with someone this warped in the mind 

I disagree the posts I see by him look mature and honest. It looks to me like he is trying to debate according to fair rules.

However I did notice that you gave up and went straight for the ad hominem personal attack.
Does ridicule help win ? Or does it just reveal your inner frustration and inability to respond intelligently?

Now remind me, is this thread about "Smoking being misrepresented" or is it about the "personality and psychological state of the OP"?

It seems to me that humans have been inhaling smoke and suit ever since the fire invention on a regular basis.

reply to post by muzzleflash


No. I noted his continued use of lies and inability to respond reasonably, so chose to call him out directly, at which point he started to devise weak tactics to divert his shortcomings onto me.

If you don't see the serious, and numerous flaws in his reasoning presented, I feel very sorry for you.

It's absolutely not worth the time to even try with this fool. Not in the least.

If someone continuously misrepresents data in order to back a false claim that will cause harm to many people if accepted as truth, I sure as hell am in the right to talk down to said individual. He deserves much more than I could do over the keyboard.

Originally posted by Ta1ntedJustice
I'm a smoker and where this is good news .. there's still plenty of other risks .. no matter what fact is thrown at me i can't stop . ..

The Patch worked for me. Nothing but nothing was gonna do it for me. I was going to die of some horrible side effect of smoking, period. I smoked a pack a day for thirty five years.

Then I found the patch. Hit me back if you want me to tell you how I did it. This is not an advertisement, just personal experience I will share.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Also it is important that I link my most recent thread :
Bee's Honey: Most Potent Medicine where it is discussed how the various chemical compounds coming from the bee hive have incredibly powerful effects on defeating nearly all forms of disease.

As it was established that it can aid against things like HIV and it is our only real weapon against super bugs, it should be clear that it would most likely have strong effects here in the case of HPV.

If HPV can cause cancers, than the bees medicine should hold back and potentially reverse that.
I looked around a bit and can't find much about the topic, so apparently it hasn't been researched very extensively.

really look at the over dose of x-rays to cause out break of cancers in 70s and the infection of 98 million people with live cancer virus in the 50s and 60s with their Polio shot dose.

Originally posted by OOOOOO
really look at the over dose of x-rays to cause out break of cancers in 70s and the infection of 98 million people with live cancer virus in the 50s and 60s with their Polio shot dose.

Yeah good call.

Add to that the fallout/contamination from the hundreds of nuclear tests or accidents.

The list adds up and guess who the real culprits are?

Military Industrial
Pharmaceutical
and
Multinational Conglomerates like GE

But they have to keep this on the down low, because if the truth came out about their products being the real cause behind all of these things they would lose everything through mega-class action lawsuits and their cash cow would be no more. And many of them will probably face criminal charges.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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

well.... my fathers friend stopped smoking in his early thirties and developed cancer in his 70 related to that... it is just catching up. You don't get cancer immediately after you smoke a cigarrettte.. you don't begin to see your cancer sprouting right away.


even if you prove that this type of cancer is all hype what about the other health issues it causes that are deadly as well??

smoking is a crappy addiction.

All this anti-smoking paranoia and people are still unhealthy, overweight, and being killed off from heart disease, eating highly processed genetically modified food shipped from hundreds of miles away and laced with questionable preservatives to give the illusion of freshness. Yet, tobacco products are singled out as the enemy and taxed extra good putting those nice Native American producers out of business. For shame!

Hell, I smoke organic cigarettes regularly and spent $1,000 last year at the Vitamin Shoppe alone, I don't know the total I spent on vitamins and other organic products. I am very fit and perfectly healthy. I do avoid all those additives and crap they put in most smokes though.