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

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Oh and if you paint the mouths and throats of animals with tar from burnt tobacco, then pre-cancerous lesions will develop (I don't know of any smokers that do that, do you?) and by the way - there is absolutely no need to treat oral-pharangeal cancers because if you stop smoking, the lesions will regress all by themselves

When you smoke you are concentrating some of the most potent carcinogens known to man in areas
which is similar to painting areas with a carcinogen.

For your other comment are you talking about pre cancerous lesions or cancer or what?

Also in your post you imply that cancer is caused by a substance and not by a lack of substance.
Clearly this isn't the case if you read about salvestrols..

Cancer is a multi variable disease if you read Dr Mary's Monkey you will see how they planned to make
Castro vulnerable to a viral caused cancer by lowering his immune system so the cancer could become lethal

Also to infer causality see www.bmj.com...
I think your argument is ridiculous to assume no causality between smoking and cancer if that is
what you are saying.

Limbo

reply to post by soundguy


Smoker's Paradox Publishes and Peer-Reviewed

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

No satisfactory explanations have been offered for the smoker's paradox, the greater short-term survival of smokers after a myocardial infarction nor for the large variations in the coronary risk rate for smoking ranging between 1 and 5.9. These discrepancies as well as the smoker's paradox may be caused by different baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers, whereas the usually quoted coronary risk of 2 is derived from studies based on the assumption of equal baseline characteristics. As neither this assumption nor the possibility of unequal starting conditions have been tested, we examined the main cardiovascular risk factors in smoking and nonsmoking boys as near as possible to baseline, at the age of fourteen. This age appeared to be best suited, because boys starting to smoke early are most likely to become regular and heavy smokers. Of 336 boys, 39 had smoked 8.3+/-6.0 cigarettes/day for 15.5+/-11.2 months. Compared to nonsmokers, boys who started to smoke early had lower LDL cholesterol and alpha2-antiplasmin, greater handgrip strength, vital capacity and forced expiratory volume, better perfomance on bicycle ergometry and higher testosterone. The differences in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, vital capacity, handgrip strength, testosterone and alpha2-antiplasmin persisted after adjustment for age, body mass, and testosterone. In addition, the differences in perfomance on bicycle ergometry and forced expiratory volume persisted after adjustment for age. These favourable baseline characteristics of those starting to smoke early can explain the smoker's paradox. In addition, they suggest that the individual coronary risk in smokers is considerably higher than 2, because the assumption of equal baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers cannot be upheld.

Smoker's Paradox (Published and Peer-Reviewed)

www.biomedcentral.com...

Adjustment for age and co-morbidity did reduce the magnitude of the smoking effect in many of the studies, but not all. Part of the remaining effect could be due to residual confounding, both because of measurement errors in the co-factors and lack of information about relevant risk factors. The six studies supporting a smoker's paradox have included STEMI patients, with fibrinolysis the dominant reperfusion strategy. This may indicate that there are slight differences in the pathogenesis of the acute coronary event in smokers as compared to non-smokers. It has previously been shown that smokers with STEMI have improved myocardial perfusion after fibrinolysis compared to non-smokers, despite adjustment for differences in age and co-morbidities [32,33]. Tobacco smoking is also associated with increased levels of circulating fibrinogen and tissue factor. This suggests a more fibrin-rich thrombus in smokers with STEMI which would leave them more amenable to fibrinolytic therapy [34] and thus an improved survival rate. All these explanations may operate in unison to contribute to the observation that smokers perform better than non-smoker after an AMI.

Smoker's Paradox (Published and Peer-Reviewed)

www.healio.com... d-clopidogrel-unraveling-the-smokers-paradox

Post-hoc analyses of pivotal clinical trials comparing dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel vs. aspirin alone have reached consistent findings, showing that clopidogrel therapy may be more effective in current smokers compared with nonsmokers.

reply to post by Limbo


Limbo

Lets be clear here. I am saying NOTHING! The medical community has announced that instead of incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer DECREASING with the decrease in the male smoking rate since the peak in the 1960s, the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is INCREASING.

Now anti-smoking was announced to the world as something that would PREVENT cancer deaths. In the case of oral-pharangeal cancers, that simply did NOT happen.

The question is, why not?

The answer of the medical community is that HPV is a brand new virus, oral sex (including kissing) has been on the rise.

My opinion is that this is bull#. That all the evidence that smoking cAUSED oral-pharangeal cancer is the result of the opinion of the surgeon general based on the weight of the epidimiological evidence with no real evidence of any biological mechanism.

It is my opinion that oral-pharangeal cancers were always CAUSED by HPV and that there is no evidence of any synergistic effect by smoking.

I think the medical community is avoiding being embarrassed and the potential of undermining the anti-smoking message.

Now I have repeated asked for debate on this subject. I am not promoting smoking. I am simply pointing out the possibility that public heath is wrong on this subject.

I have been attacked and abused but no one yet has responded to the actual topic of discussion

Tired of Control Freaks

Good post and reflects my thinking on the current paradigm by the establishment on tobacco smoking.

Here is a post I started on another forum some years ago:

WARNING: IF YOU SMOKE 'THEY' WANT YOU DEAD!

Greetings,
HISTORY: In the 20th Century a cumulative fanaticism which started in the 19th Century and was based on the opinions of many A-- holes of the era and based upon the 'so called fact' that alcohol was a major public health hazard, evil, and had to be outlawed led to
PROHIBITION, the outlawing of almost all drinking alcohol in the USA and the rise of major crime cartels. These same A-- holes are doing a good job with the same scenario and illegal drugs - BUT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH - HELL HAS NO LIMIT TO ASSANINE THINKING!
'THEY' want to do the same thing with tobacco! Some cities have oulawed outdoor smoking, some indoor smoking AND YOU KNOW WHERE THESE 'PROHIBITIONISTS' ARE GOING - THEY WANT TO OUTLAW ALL TOBACCO PERIOD!
If you still smoke they insist you quit or else you are considered by them not only to be endangering your own health which theoretically is costing the public money in hospital costs [they forget to mention that you are supposed to die early from smoking and therefor are saving money in health care, medicare, social security, etc. but that truth does not fit their agenda]; AND NOW YOU ARE A MASS MURDERER! YOUR SECOND HAND SMOKE IS CONTRIBUTING TO 50,000 DEATHS A YEAR????? 'They' want you dead to satisfy their statistical paradigm and to save the public health!
Sound familiar? PROHIBITION all over again in the 21st Century. The fact that the latest statistics show light to moderate drinkers outlive non-drinkers in almost all categories and research has shown cigar smokers to live almost as long as non-smokers and pipe smokers
to actually live two years longer than non-smokers is irrelevant to these people - in order to achieve the agenda they want to outlaw tobacco and if 'they' can't stop you from smoking 'they' want you dead! AND YOU CAN DRINK TO THAT - THEY LOST THE ALCOHOL WAR!
REMEMBER:
A ROSE, IS A ROSE, IS A ROSE
and
A NEO-NAZI FASCIST, IS A FASCIST, IS A FASCIST! [Hitler hated tobacco and meant well didn't he?]

May freedom triumph,

- Alienated friend

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.

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

Are you actually reading the stuff your referencing or just reading the headline and hoping for the best?

This is from your linked article and essentially contradicts your assessment -
* Dr. Sharven Taghavi, M.D., who was the lead author of the study, told MedPage Today during an interview on Tuesday that while "historically, we have considered donors who have over 20 pack-years of smoking to be less than ideal" candidates for donation, the shortage of viable donor lungs has led researchers to be more willing to think outside of the normal donation parameters.

* This is not to say that smokers' lungs make for ideal donor organs, merely that having a transplantable lung that came from a smoker is better than having someone die waiting for another one from a non-smoker. The MedPage Today report made note of the fact that the smokers' lungs that were used were very carefully screened before being put to use.

* The Huffington Post noted in its report on Tuesday that the study looked at the cases of some 5,900 transplant recipients, all of whom had undergone double-lung transplants. Of that number, some 766 had received smokers' lungs.

* The Huffington Post piece also noted that previous studies have shown that receiving smokers' lungs as part of an organ transplant does increase the overall survival rate of those on the transplant list, but that some 46 percent of people who do so also go on to have a higher risk of death "three years post-transplant" than those who receive lungs from a non-smoker.


To summarize, smokers lungs aren't the first choice but transplanting them beats the hell out of letting a patient die while waiting on the transplant list for more viable organs.

reply to post by peter vlar


But it is still a very very very far cry from the image of smokers lungs as being black with tar now isn't it?

The point of that posting was that if you autopsied a smoker, you would find something different from a non-smoker.

In fact, smokers lungs are suitable for transplant and this includes even the use of lungs from a heavy smoker for a double transplant.

Despite the fact that some doctors have the opinion that it isn't "ideal", its obvious that the lungs aren't dripping with tar either.

Would this be another myth of the anti-smoking campaign exposed as a lie?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


BTW - so people who receive a lung transplant from a smoker are at greater risk of death???? implying that it is the smoker's lungs that are the CAUSE of this death?

Let us remember here that transplant recipiants ran through one set of lungs for a reason and that transplant recipiants also take a truckload of drugs to suppress the immune system.

Is it possible that whether or not the donor lungs come from a smoker or not - lung transplant recipiants are not all that likely to live a normal life span

scopeblog.stanford.edu...

Only about 55 percent of patients survive five years after the transplant. Those rates are better at Bay Area hospitals, where about two-thirds of patients can expect to survive that long. Nationwide, only a third of patients live 10 years. It’s unclear what, exactly, goes wrong after the first year. Most patients die of what’s known as chronic rejection, which causes the airways of the lung to deteriorate slowly. Doctors don’t yet know how to prevent or stop that process. “I started doing (lung transplants) in the early ’90s, and it was really primitive then, and it’s gotten a lot better. All sorts of things have improved,” said Dr. David Weill, director of Stanford’s Center for Advanced Lung Disease. “But we haven’t solved the mystery of that slow loss of lung function.” - See more at: scopeblog.stanford.edu...

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by AlienView


My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

Someone beat me to it.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Limbo
Lets be clear here. I am saying NOTHING! The medical community has announced that instead of incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer DECREASING with the decrease in the male smoking rate since the peak in the 1960s, the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is INCREASING.

Probably because the control mechanisms that deal with the cancer are becoming weaker also?
Salvestrols could explain this. As your remove them from the diet then the cancer rates would go up?

You have carcinogen which births the cancer and the mechanisms which deal with the cancer
as it develops are eroded also so the rates go up.

Also if I remember correctly. In one of my books it talks about lung cancer in sailors or something.
(I forget which book) and they claimed it could be the fish they were eating which protected
them from the cancer. (Vitamin A?)

Anyways point was that since they were sailors + they smoked heavily they _should_ have
higher rates of cancer but they did not. Something was protecting them from the cancer.

Limbo

There are a lot of lies that have been spread on what is good or bad for us. It seems that anything that lowers our energy is considered good and anything that raises our energy level is bad. These lies seem to go back way over a thousand years, our ancestors were stronger and more energetic than we were. They also could be very violent.

reply to post by Limbo


If you live in a city, you are breathing in the equivalent amount of carcinogens that a fourty a day untipped smoker will inhale. Mainly due to the particulates of un burnt diesel. If you get diesel on the skin it will be absorbed. Every diesel mechanic I knew is dead ,but that dosn't mean much as the life expectancy of the present doctors, who tell us smoking is bad, is 58 years, and psychiatrist even less, . Killer no. 1 will never be acknowledged , and we all know why. The anti smoking industry is so well entrenched, they can collect their fat salaries, and drive home in there diesel rvr.
The "Asian paradox"...:"The French paradox" perhaps suggest that diet is far more important than what you breath in.
Perhaps the clincher, was way back when they did the test on mice, One lot were given Strontium gas, another Tobacco smoke. The ones given Strontium got lung cancer, the ones given Tobacco smoke didn't. Then they made a mistake and gave the ones that were getting tobacco smoke the Strontium gas, then it was found that the mucous coating the tobacco mices lungs protected, them against the Strontium. The Conclusion was that tobacco smoke protected them against lung cancer. This was not what the senate committee wanted to hear, and if you are a scientist that wants funding you have to tell them what they want to hear, the truth wont come in to the matter.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


In the real world they call your line of rhetoric a rationalization. Have you ever seen the lungs if a smoker? I can assure you that they are indeed black with tar and are very different in appearance to the lungs of someone who has never smoked. I personally couldn't care less if someone smokes let alone what they smoke. People should be allowed to do with their lives and bodies as they please without the government sliding a probe up their *ss to keep tabs. But informed consent is key and spreading BS doesn't help matters IMO

reply to post by peter vlar

The Black Lung Lie Posted on August 6, 2012 by Frank Davis A discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations: “Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.” Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.” Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.” And Brigitte even found a Youtube video: There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist. Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same: This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980′s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”. Nevertheless, the black lungs are all over cigarette packets these days.

cfrankdavis.wordpress.com...

Can you believe it peter vlar? Another anti-smoking myth which does not correlate with the facts.

You might want to read the entire article at the link posted above. If not here another quote from it:

To be sure, positive emotions are not the only ones that can be appealed to. Fear and disgust work just as well in the hands of a skilled manipulator. One Crusader, a feeder at the public trough of Delaware National Guard’s Counterdrug Task Force, likes to scare impressionable children by holding up a blackened, bloody, and diseased looking lung in classrooms while explaining that the cancerous thing came from a man who had smoked for just 15 years. In reality, it is simply a pig’s lung shot full of carcinogens and prepared carefully to look disgusting, gruesome, and scary… not a human lung at all. The National Guard Captain explained to the reporter covering the story that his lesson was made stronger “by not passing along that tidbit of truth” (James Merriweather. Delaware News Journal. 04/05/01).

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView

 

My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

There was an interesting program on PBS, a documentary on Prohibition showing the somewhat sordid history
of the movement which led to the outlawing of all drinking alcohol and the inevitable rise in the huge Organized
Crime Syndicates that continue to flourish to this day. The Prohibitionist starting in the 1700s with good intentions because of the problems 'some' people had with alcohol, began their campaigns and like the anti-tobacco lobby of today would convince you alcohol was essentially a poison with no safe level of consumption
- another words they lied and twisted the data to perpetrate the lie. I study health issues and the current
statistics show that light to moderate drinkers are healthier [under most circumstances] then non-drinkers and
live longer.

Had the demonization of tobacco not become what it has they might have found that light to moderate smokers
[under some circumstance] would actually benefit. After all a few years ago they were saying that smoking was
the leading cause of preventable death - And now, guess what? Right, obesity has now become the leading cause of preventable death. If do-gooders really want to do good they ought to think about what they are doing
and/or advocating lest they do more bad then good - What was the old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with
good intentions".

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


TiredOfPeopleWhoDon'tUnderstandResearch

Pretty sure we already had this same or almost exact same discussion and I destroyed you and you refused to use your brain in any capacity whatsoever.

Yeeeppppp I did. Here is the post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems you are still employed by the Tobacco industry.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You may think as you please. The posts are open for all to read and think about.

However, this post is about the announcement of the medical community that oral-pharangeal cancers are increasing dramatically because more people are practicing oral sex in past 30 years.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


BTW - I am not now and I have never, ever, been employed by the tobacco company or any company affiliated with the tobacco company.

Are you affiliated with, employed by or volunteer to a public health or anti-smoking organization or charity or with any university who does anti-smoking research?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter Vlar

Rationalization works two ways.

Its easier for you to believe that oral sex and kissing has been in fashion only in the 30 years, then that smoking DOES NOT cause oral-pharangeal cancer?

Despite the fact that the surgeon general never said that smoking CAUSED oral-pharangeal cancer, only that the wieght of the evidence is sufficient to infer the cause?

Tired of Control Freaks

I really find it strange on this site, which has a very anti-government tone, that many people are unable to accept that using studies, especially epidemiological, to implement policy is social engineering.


The dose is the poison.


Of course smoking three packs of cigarettes a day is unhealthy, however, there are those who are able to moderate their intake and use tobacco more as a meditative aid, as do pipe smokers. Working classes have traditionally had higher rates of smokers due to their generally more stressful lifestyles; lower rates of pay, money worries, less security etc. They smoke because they are stressed – more stress, more cigarettes smoked. Increasing the tax on cigarettes hurts the working class more. This is making them poorer, not healthier.

We should not forget that nicotine and tobacco do also have benefits, which studies have shown.