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

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

Do these same studies include the totality of thier exposure to cancer-causing environments?

Å99

Yes. They do. why do you think non smokers still get lung cancer? 30% of all lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking.

Because 70% of all smokers are privvy to factors that non-smokers are...refer to OP...

...only 30% you say!? Then the earth is still flat...

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

Do these same studies include the totality of thier exposure to cancer-causing environments?

Å99

Yes. They do. why do you think non smokers still get lung cancer? 30% of all lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking.

Because 70% of all smokers are privvy to factors that non-smokers are...refer to OP...

...only 30% you say!? Then the earth is still flat...

Å99

If smoking does not cause cancer, then both smokers and non smokers should have similar rates of cancer all other factors being equal, correct?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

Do these same studies include the totality of thier exposure to cancer-causing environments?

Å99

Yes. They do. why do you think non smokers still get lung cancer? 30% of all lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking.

Because 70% of all smokers are privvy to factors that non-smokers are...refer to OP...

...only 30% you say!? Then the earth is still flat...

Å99

If smoking does not cause cancer, then both smokers and non smokers should have similar rates of cancer all other factors being equal, correct?

This is what the 'passive smoking' push would have you believe...all other factors are not equal...

To clarify my position...I am not advocating smoking, I am not denying a link...I am denying the numbers (statistics) and the contributing factors and thier influence, by percentage...there really is no way to exclude the contributing factors that are not cited as contributing and to what degree...this is junk science...

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04If smoking does not cause cancer, then both smokers and non smokers should have similar rates of cancer all other factors being equal, correct?

This is what the 'passive smoking' push would have you believe...all other factors are not equal...

To clarify my position...I am not advocating smoking, I am not denying a link...I am denying the numbers (statistics) and the contributing factors and thier influence, by percentage...there really is no way to exclude the contributing factors that are not cited as contributing and to what degree...this is junk science...

Å99

You did not answer my question. So please answer it. If smoking does not cause cancer then smokers and non-smokers should have similar rate of cancer all other factors being equal, correct? How about you actually answer the question this time.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04If smoking does not cause cancer, then both smokers and non smokers should have similar rates of cancer all other factors being equal, correct?

This is what the 'passive smoking' push would have you believe...all other factors are not equal...

To clarify my position...I am not advocating smoking, I am not denying a link...I am denying the numbers (statistics) and the contributing factors and thier influence, by percentage...there really is no way to exclude the contributing factors that are not cited as contributing and to what degree...this is junk science...

Å99

You did not answer my question. So please answer it. If smoking does not cause cancer then smokers and non-smokers should have similar rate of cancer all other factors being equal, correct? How about you actually answer the question this time.

Here's a question for you...why do all smokers NOT succumb to lung cancer? That is how I will answer the question. The statistics DO NOT exclude, delineate, explain this anomoly...why does it not 'cause' lung cancer in 100% of smokers?...since it is a cause of all lung cancer according to the stats you would believe...let alone the stats that include non-smokers (and I find it way interesting and perplexing how this could be done...given that the lungs are used to breathe EVERYTHING IN...including EVERYTHING that has not been identified)...get where I'm going?

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04If smoking does not cause cancer, then both smokers and non smokers should have similar rates of cancer all other factors being equal, correct?

This is what the 'passive smoking' push would have you believe...all other factors are not equal...

To clarify my position...I am not advocating smoking, I am not denying a link...I am denying the numbers (statistics) and the contributing factors and thier influence, by percentage...there really is no way to exclude the contributing factors that are not cited as contributing and to what degree...this is junk science...

Å99

You did not answer my question. So please answer it. If smoking does not cause cancer then smokers and non-smokers should have similar rate of cancer all other factors being equal, correct? How about you actually answer the question this time.

Here's a question for you...why do all smokers NOT succumb to lung cancer? That is how I will answer the question. The statistics DO NOT exclude, delineate, explain this anomoly...why does it not 'cause' lung cancer in 100% of smokers?...since it is a cause of all lung cancer according to the stats you would believe...let alone the stats that include non-smokers (and I find it way interesting and perplexing how this could be done...given that the lungs are used to breathe EVERYTHING IN...including EVERYTHING that has not been identified)...get where I'm going?

Å99

So again you refuse to answer my question because in doing so you will prove my position right, and your position wrong. Instead you ask me a question full of logical fallacies. Your question displays the depths of your ignorance in not only this subject, but quite a few related subjects.

I will gladly answer your question, because your question proves your position wrong. Why do some people die from snake and spider bites, and some live? If one person lives does that mean no snakebites are poisonous? You realize how stupid a person would sound if they claim rattlesnakes are not poisonous because one person was bitten and lived?

Now, your next fallacious statement, the statistics do explain this. Cancer, like many diseases, has many causes. Smoking is one of them. Each cause is considered a risk factor. Some risk factors are low, some are high. People with multiple risk factors have a more likely chance to get cancer. So a smoker who has been exposed to radon at home will have a higher chance to get cancer than a similar smoker with no radon exposure.

The body naturally fights off cancer infection. So in a sense, yes, every single person who smokes gets cancer. Smoking, along with other factors, create a situation where the body is unable to fight off the cancerous cells.

When 1,000 smokers and 1,000 non-smokers people breathe the EXACT SAME air, and only 10 non-smokers get lung cancer and 90 smokers get lung cancer, how do you explain that?

I get exactly where you are going, and it is proof of how ignorant you are. You get where I am going, which is why you still refuse to answer my question.

Ad hominem discounts all reasonable argument...bye bye...

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99
Ad hominem discounts all reasonable argument...bye bye...

Å99

There was no ad hominem attack.
ad ho·mi·nem/æd ˈhɒmənəm -ˌnɛm, ɑd‐/ Show Spelled [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐] Show IPA
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Saying you are ignorant on the subject is not in any way an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be something along the lines of "yeah well you're gay so you're wrong", or "you probably think chemtrails are real too". You know, trying to impugn your character with remarks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Now that we cleared up the fact you are not running away due to ad hominem attacks, we can move on to the real reason you stopped, the fact you can't answer any of the very simple questions I asked, and I answered yours with ease.

Fact: Nearly all lung cancer is directly attributable to smoking, and if people stopped 70% of all lung cancer cases would disappear.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99
Ad hominem discounts all reasonable argument...bye bye...

Å99

There was no ad hominem. I expected you to stop since you can't answer any of the very simple questions I asked, and I answered yours with ease.

Fact: Nearly all lung cancer is directly attributable to smoking, and if people stopped 70% of all lung cancer cases would disappear.

edit on 10-8-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

' it is proof of how ignorant you are.'

You'd like to qualify this, somehow, as not ad hominem? Monologue over...

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99
Ad hominem discounts all reasonable argument...bye bye...

Å99

There was no ad hominem. I expected you to stop since you can't answer any of the very simple questions I asked, and I answered yours with ease.

Fact: Nearly all lung cancer is directly attributable to smoking, and if people stopped 70% of all lung cancer cases would disappear.

edit on 10-8-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

' it is proof of how ignorant you are.'

You'd like to qualify this, somehow, as not ad hominem? Monologue over...

Å99

edit on 10-8-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

There was no ad hominem attack. I edited my last post as you replied, you can look back or just look below.

ad ho·mi·nem/æd ˈhɒmənəm -ˌnɛm, ɑd‐/ Show Spelled [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐] Show IPA
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Saying you are ignorant on the subject is not in any way an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be something along the lines of "yeah well you're gay so you're wrong", or "you probably think chemtrails are real too". You know, trying to impugn your character with remarks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Now that we cleared up the fact you are not running away due to ad hominem attacks, we can move on to the real reason you stopped, the fact you can't answer any of the very simple questions I asked, and I answered yours with ease.

Consider this a joyous day, you have become less ignorant on the effects of smoking, and also now you understand what an ad hominem attack is and isn't.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
if stereotypes hold true then black males do not get much oral cancer?

yep! That is true.. black males go not get much oral cancer.. and they also cant swim worth a damn but they sure can play them sports!!. REALLY?

reply to post by akushla99


Some people really hate the smell of stale smoke, It clings to fabric, and even non smokers clothes. But isn't that why we had smoking and non smoking? Someone far away and a long time ago probably an accountant, decided to get the anti smoking ball rolling, it gained traction by telling the bosses how many man hours were lost over the year by people having a smoke. Then they must have identified, the fact that smokers could be blamed for every illness known to man. Thus another victim industry was born. Then along come the "carnivorous lawyers". and all the brown noses going for the Brownie points. Then its a self perpetuating social masturbation machine. That's created less jobs than the Tobacco industry originaly supplied. With yet another of lifes pleasures denied. But its what these people do, then leave a mess, and depart.
Hitler wanted every one to give up smoking, whilst at the same time dosing himself with amphetamines until he got Parkinsons. These people are extremists, manipulators, with a religious zeal which is equal to any New age missionary.

Originally posted by kdyam

Originally posted by deadeyedick
if stereotypes hold true then black males do not get much oral cancer?

yep! That is true.. black males go not get much oral cancer.. and they also cant swim worth a damn but they sure can play them sports!!. REALLY?

False. They are more common in men than women, but race is not a factor. Just as many black men get it.

tl;dr

But, even in the unlikelihood that smoking is not linked to pharangeal cancer, does this imply people now give up on quitting or even take up the disgusting addiction?

It's like saying not all moslems want to convert or kill all non moslems and to have Islam dominate the world, so therefore we should invite Al-Qaeda to the U.N. and Taliban to the G8!

Originally posted by InvasiveProbing
tl;dr

But, even in the unlikelihood that smoking is not linked to pharangeal cancer, does this imply people now give up on quitting or even take up the disgusting addiction?

It's like saying not all moslems want to convert or kill all non moslems and to have Islam dominate the world, so therefore we should invite Al-Qaeda to the U.N. and Taliban to the G8!

Smoking is still 100% linked to OP cancer. Tobacco products are still the leading cause of OP cancer. In the near future HPV may overtake it.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


OccamsRazor04

You have not read this entire post very well. Nor are your arguments very helpful.

1. Right now - we know for sure that no oral-pharangeal cancer study done ever "PROVED" that tobacco-smoking CAUSES cancer. We know this to be true because the surgeon general only had sufficient evidence to INFER that smoking causes oral-pharangeal cancer.

Even you yourself admit that the reason why tobacco is thought to cause oral-pharangeal cancer is because studies have shown that the disease occurs 70 % in smokers and only 30 % in never-smokers.

As you said "all things being equal, the rate of cancer should be the same in both groups"


But...as has been point out to you....all things are NOT equal!


2. The idea that a virus might cause cancer has only been suspected and under research since the 1970s. There are up to a hundred strains of HPV and not all of them have been identified yet. For oral-pharangeal cancers CAUSED by HPV, there is no 'infer" in identifying the cause. It is the cause.

This is called a Confounding Factor. The studies that showed that OP cancer occurs in smokers more than non-smokers never looked for HPV.

Is it possible that smokers (who are more social and greater risk-takers than never-smokers) simply have a greater rate of HPV infection?

It took over 10 years to identify all the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is another cancer that the surgeon general found that the weight of the evidence was sufficient to infer that tobacco smoking was the cause. This inference was developed simply because cervical cancer occurred more frequently in smokers than never-smokers.

We now know that cervical cancer is 99 % CAUSED by HPV and smoking has nothing to do with it. This pretty much proves that smokers have more sex than never-smokers. They simply have a higher rate of HPV infection.

Are we teetering on the day when it will be determined that ALL OP cancers are found to also be CAUSED by HPV?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by InvasiveProbing
tl;dr

OccamsRazor04 said:

"Smoking is still 100% linked to OP cancer. Tobacco products are still the leading cause of OP cancer. In the near future HPV may overtake it.

NO DEAR - that is incorrect

70 % of oral-pharangeal cancers are now know to be CAUSED by HPV and are NOT linked to tobacco.

I posted that information earlier in this post - which you didn't read because your idea of a debate is to simply disagree without knowing anything about the subject but just based on what you have been told in the past.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by InvasiveProbing
tl;dr

OccamsRazor04 said:

"Smoking is still 100% linked to OP cancer. Tobacco products are still the leading cause of OP cancer. In the near future HPV may overtake it.

NO DEAR - that is incorrect

70 % of oral-pharangeal cancers are now know to be CAUSED by HPV and are NOT linked to tobacco.

I posted that information earlier in this post - which you didn't read because your idea of a debate is to simply disagree without knowing anything about the subject but just based on what you have been told in the past.

Tired of Control Freaks

I did read, and have proved to be far more well versed than you on this topic. In fact I looked again and I don't see your 70% figure anywhere on the first page. Show me your source for that.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

OccamsRazor04

You have not read this entire post very well. Nor are your arguments very helpful.

1. Right now - we know for sure that no oral-pharangeal cancer study done ever "PROVED" that tobacco-smoking CAUSES cancer. We know this to be true because the surgeon general only had sufficient evidence to INFER that smoking causes oral-pharangeal cancer.

This highlights your ignorance on the topic. I posted the exact definition of what the surgeon general said. You somehow think an inference is a wild guess. It means that the evidence overwhelmingly proves tobacco products cause OP cancer. To suggest otherwise is intentionally misleading and lying.

Even you yourself admit that the reason why tobacco is thought to cause oral-pharangeal cancer is because studies have shown that the disease occurs 70 % in smokers and only 30 % in never-smokers.

As you said "all things being equal, the rate of cancer should be the same in both groups"


But...as has been point out to you....all things are NOT equal!

Then you explain the difference away. Why is smoking or not smoking the single biggest factor? If it's all caused by HPV as you conclude, why are smokers the ones being affected? Are you saying non smokers don't do oral sex?

2. The idea that a virus might cause cancer has only been suspected and under research since the 1970s. There are up to a hundred strains of HPV and not all of them have been identified yet. For oral-pharangeal cancers CAUSED by HPV, there is no 'infer" in identifying the cause. It is the cause.

Actually you are wrong. They infer this in the exact same way as they infer smoking causes cancer. You're simply lying again.

This is called a Confounding Factor. The studies that showed that OP cancer occurs in smokers more than non-smokers never looked for HPV.

Is it possible that smokers (who are more social and greater risk-takers than never-smokers) simply have a greater rate of HPV infection?

Since there are studies that have been done to address HPV as a cause for OP cancer no, it's not possible. It's not a confounding variable whatsoever as it's a known risk factor that has been accounted for. When accounting for HPV smoking STILL is the leading cause of OP cancer. Although for certain age groups HPV is a higher risk factor (younger people). Since most OP cancer occurs in the elderly, the fact young people are more likely to have OP cancer from HPV and not tobacco means the overall leading cause is still tobacco. Stop lying.

It took over 10 years to identify all the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is another cancer that the surgeon general found that the weight of the evidence was sufficient to infer that tobacco smoking was the cause. This inference was developed simply because cervical cancer occurred more frequently in smokers than never-smokers.

We now know that cervical cancer is 99 % CAUSED by HPV and smoking has nothing to do with it. This pretty much proves that smokers have more sex than never-smokers. They simply have a higher rate of HPV infection.

Are we teetering on the day when it will be determined that ALL OP cancers are found to also be CAUSED by HPV?

Tired of Control Freaks

In 1977 sexual behavior was associated with cervical cancer.
764.Winkelstein W Jr. Smoking and cancer of the uterine cervix: hypothesis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1977;106(4):257–9

Now claiming smoking has nothing to do with it is simply a bald faced lie. It is 100% a factor in cervical cancer. This is the current view of cervical cancer.

A large body of epidemiologic evidence supports a positive relationship between smoking and cervical cancer. Smoking has consistently been associated with higher risks of cervical cancer that increase with the duration of smoking and the number of cigarettes smoked per day

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

Smoking alone will not lead to cervical cancer, but smoking 100% is a risk factor, and if you smoke you are far more likely to get cervical cancer. Please stop your bald faced lies. And you claim you are more informed than me?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

OccamsRazor04

You say:
"This highlights your ignorance on the topic. I posted the exact definition of what the surgeon general said. You somehow think an inference is a wild guess. It means that the evidence overwhelmingly proves tobacco products cause OP cancer. To suggest otherwise is intentionally misleading and lying."

I say:
I have never said that inference is a wild guess. Factually, I said NOTHING. The Surgeon General's report explains exactly what "infer" means and I posted the link in the OP. Surgeon Generals Report explained what "sufficient to infer cause" actually means. It DOES NOT mean that the matter is PROVED. It means that it is the opinion of the Surgeon General that, based on the weight of the evidence, there is sufficient reason to "infer that smoking causes" Infer is NOT the same as PROVED. Please read the report.


YOU Say:
"Then you explain the difference away. Why is smoking or not smoking the single biggest factor? If it's all caused by HPV as you conclude, why are smokers the ones being affected? Are you saying non smokers don't do oral sex?"

I say:
First of all, to be clear, you can be infected with HPV through open mouth kissing, not just oral sex. No I am not saying the never-smokers don't do oral sex. Obviously, they do because they get oral-pharangeal cancer too. I am suggesting the never-smokers don't have as many partners as smokers because smokers known to be more social than never-smokers as well as being greater risk-takers.

You say:
Actually you are wrong. They infer this in the exact same way as they infer smoking causes cancer. You're simply lying again."

I say:
Calling me a liar does not make me one. Please keep the debate civil or I will report you.

So now you are saying that HPV as a cause of cancer is only "infered" while smoking as a cause of cancer is "proved". I am sorry but the Surgeon General himself states smoking as a cause of cancer is only inferred based on the weight of the evidence.

As for HPV being the cause of cancer - it was proved in a laboratory.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The UW study, published in the Aug. 8 issue of Nature, pieced together the complicated insertion of the human papillomavirus (HPV) genome, which contains its own set of cancer genes, into Lacks' genome near an "oncogene," a naturally occurring gene that can cause cancer when altered. The researchers showed that the proximity of the scrambled HPV genome and the oncogene resulted in its activation, potentially explaining the aggressiveness of both Lacks' cancer and the HeLa cell line. "This was in a sense a perfect storm of what can go wrong in a cell," said Andrew Adey, a PhD student in genome sciences at UW and a co-first author on the study. "The HPV virus inserted into her genome in what might be the worst possible way."

YOU SAY:
Since there are studies that have been done to address HPV as a cause for OP cancer no, it's not possible. It's not a confounding variable whatsoever as it's a known risk factor that has been accounted for. When accounting for HPV smoking STILL is the leading cause of OP cancer. Although for certain age groups HPV is a higher risk factor (younger people). Since most OP cancer occurs in the elderly, the fact young people are more likely to have OP cancer from HPV and not tobacco means the overall leading cause is still tobacco. Stop lying.

I say:
please provide a study that accounts for HPV infection when comparing the rates of OP in smokers and never smokers, I have never seen one. Usually the test of the study tells you exactly what confounding factors were considered and accounted for; If what you say is true, it should be easy to find a study that accounts for HPV as a confound factor

Further, while the newspaper article in the OP talks about the dramatic increase of OP in young people, I posted the actual seer data link from the Center for Disease Control showing that this is not true. There has been no dramatic increase of OP in young people.

You say:
Now claiming smoking has nothing to do with it is simply a bald faced lie. It is 100% a factor in cervical cancer. This is the current view of cervical

I say:
Anti-smokers may view cervical cancer and smoking in whatever way they wish. Scientists are attacking the virus that actually causes the disease and have developed a vaccine for it. I would suggest you provide your 100 % proof that smoking has anything to do with cervical cancer.


Tired of Control Freaks