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.

 

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

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I should like to point out to every person involved in this thread, the following facts:

1. this post is not about encouraging or discouraging people to smoke. It is about what I think might be a conspiracy by the medical community to avoid retracting statements they have made about smoking and the cause of oral-pharageal (OP) cancers.

2. If it was announced tomorrow that smoking DOES NOT cause cancer of any kind, it would still be up to the individual to decide if they want to smoke or not. Adults should not have their decisions guided by propaganda, lies and threats of the boogie man. We are not children.

We deserve truth and we deserve it most from the medical community.

3. if it was announced tomorrow that smoking DOES NOT cause cancer, there is a lot more at stake then whether or not the smoking rate goes up or down.

Anti-smoking campaigns have been used as justification to financially rape smokers. Is this actually just?
Anti-smoking campaigns have be used to vilify smokers as mass-murderers. Is this actually just?
Anti-smoking campaigns have been used to deny smokers the right to participate fully in society. Is this actually just?
Anti-smoking campaigns have been used to deny smokers equal right to housing and jobs. Is this actually just?
Anti-smoking campaigns have been used to create divisions in society, terrify the public. Is this actually just?
'Anti-smoking campaigns have been used to deny smokers access to medical treatment. Is this actually just?

In short, there is a lot more at stake here then whether the population smoking rate goes up or down.

Tired of Control freaks




posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


And calling me a liar is NOT an ad hominem attack?

It is not up to anyone to PROVE that smoking does not cause cancer and is safe. Safe is a negative word. It implies there is absolutely no risk. No one can prove that something doesn't exist. It can only be proved that something does exist.

The burden of the proof lies with the person who is trying to say that something does exist. Not with the person trying to say that it doesn't exist.

Tired of Control freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
'Statistics' show smoking is not a healthy habit and is probably a risk factor for cancer BUT the Devil is in the details.
George Burns the famous comedian smoked cigars till he was a 100 and succumbed to other factors than smoking.
And of course you've read how vegetables are supposed to be healthy and lower your risk for cancer BUT consider this:



Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study:

UK researchers found that vegetarians had a lower overall cancer rate than meat eaters, but contrary to suggestions from other studies, they found a higher rate of colorectal cancer among the vegetarians than among the meat eaters.

The study was the work of researchers working on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) and the findings were published in the online issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on 11 March.


A friend of mine smokes a pipe and he read he should keep looking inside of your mouth for anything unusual
that does not go away just in case it might indicate oral cancer. So he sees a tiny white dot near the back of
his mouth and shows it to his dentist who suggest biopsy - it was a papilloma [benign] and was removed when
biopsied - they said if left it could turn to cancer. Had he not been a smoker he probably never would have noticed this papilloma some varieties of which are a leading cause of the oral-pharangeal cancers this post was
originally about. So here, in this case, did the fact that he smoked and therefor was more observant of his
mouth actually save him from developing oral-pharangeal cancer? Yes, in this case it might have. Would I then jump to the conclusion that pipe smoking lowers the risk of oral-pharangeal cance? Of course not. But that is my point and the problem with using statistics for a one size fits all paradigm of health.

And while we're at it why doesn't someone get on the case of Ronald McDonald and the fast food industry?
With obesity now replacing smoking as the leading cause of preventable death over smoking what has been
accomplished with the war against smoking? More people are eating themselves to death than smoking
themselves to death!. And yes obesity too is statistically
a cause for cancer. What I would like to see them study is why a few, and I'm sure you could find a few,
obese smokers live to a ripe old age - Why can some spite the statistics rather than succumb to them?
Do statistics really make us healthier? Does one size fit all? The Mayor of NY thinks so - wants to limit the
size of soft drinks. Will the day come when they try to limit the size of people to fit the statistical norm?



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


You know I have been doing some more reading!

Apparently the medical community is saying that there is a difference between HPV-positive and HPV-negative OP cancers. the HPV-positive OP cancers have overtaken the HPV-negative OP cancers with HPV-positive OP now accounting for roughly 70 % of all OP cancers.

Of course, they indicate that HPV-negative cancers are tobacco-related (not proved to be CAUSED by tobacco but assumed to be related to tobacco. (Whatever happened to alcohol-related OP?) These cancers are focused on the front of the oral cavity and the tongue, while HPV-positive cancers are located further in the oral-cavity and in the throat.

Anyway this business of whether or not a tumor is HPV-positive is not quite as straight forward as they make it seem.

First there is the problem of identifying the correct strain of HPV. Some papers say that there are over 100 strains of HPV and others say more than 120 and still others claim more than 130 strains. Some strains are relatively harmless but some are carcinogenic and they just have NOT identified all of the carcinogenic ones.

Second - there is the problem of identifying HPV in each tumor.

www.oncologypractice.com...

So while they pretend that there is a clear cut difference between HPV-positive and HPV-negative tumors, the fact is that the identification of the virus in the tumor is not as accurate as they make it seem.

I believe, and this is just an opinion, that in the next couple of years, there will be a vacinne for the prevention of OP because, like cervical cancer, they will have identified ALL the strains that cause it. And like cervical cancer, OP will no longer be considered a 'tobacco-related" cancer.

Then will come cancers of the abdominal system. they already know that HPV is related to anal cancers and other abdominal cancers.

Then will come lung cancer:

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




CONCLUSIONS: HPV can be regarded as an environmental factor in tumor development. There might be a relationship between HPV infection and some non-small cell lung cancers, especially in the smoking group.


I will be watching this whole HPV thing very closely and I, for one, fully intend to hold anti-smokers completely responsible for the misery they have caused.

They have known about the possibility that HPV may cause cancer since the 1950s and have been doing serious research since the 1970s. Thank goodness for real medical researchers instead of the fake, for-hire anti-smoking researchers.

Now of all the people that have talked about smoking in this post - not a single person has expressed the slightest interest in the fact that HPV research may well yield a cure for most cancers.

I guess it is more fun to harrass, humiliate and scourge a group of people for an activity they don't like, then it is to finally cure cancer!

Tired of Control freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Oral-pharangeal cancers and we all know in the current anti-smoking paradigm 'they' will find any and all reasons
possible to attribute any, and if possible all cancers, to smoking. BUT they will often leave out other factors even if the other factors are significant. AND THEN I'M SUDDENLY HIT WITH THE OBVIOUS; As you pointed out op the most significant cause of this cancer is a virus - Now thing about this, when smokers smoke what do they always do?
They put a cigarette [or pipe, cigar] in their mouth; And how do they do this? Right, with their hands; And how are
viruses, such as colds and possibly even papalamonia virus spread? with your hands. Cigarette smokers often are sociable talkative and are obviously putting their hands to their mouths more often than non-smokers; And if they are doing this and coming into contact with people and objects handled by others they could be spreading the virus. They say as of now 'Sharing of contaminated objects is a much less common way of transmission of HPV from one person to another' but what if it is not as uncommon as they think? You go into a store, you handle objects, and if you smoke and haven't washed or disinfected your hands your exposed.

And do you think if this is true the anti-smoking cartel will ever say it? NO, never, they have a paradigm and they will stick to it irregardless of the truth. And if we find more and more that cancers are caused by viruses,
in which case same scenario would hold for lung cancer, do you think they will ever tell you about it and say
light up and enjoy, we were wrong after all? NO they will not. It took maybe 75 years after the end of
Prohibition for the evidence of science to show that light to moderate drinking is actually good for you [usually,
but not including alcoholics who obviously it is bad for].

So if what I'm hypothesizing proves true you could still say smoking causes cancer but not from the smoke
but from the frequent oral contact - And the defense if you still choose to smoke; wash or disinfect your hands
before smoking.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


OH MY GOD - AlienView - YOU ARE RIGHT!

What an obvious thing! And it is common for smokers to share a cigarette as well!!!

That would neatly explain why smokers get more OP cancers. And lung cancers. And cervical cancers (virus in mouth first and then to oral sex).

You really put a lot of thought into this. You are truly amazing.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


And here is the proof:

www.mountsinai.org...



If HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, are there other ways to contract the virus? Researchers are still evaluating the various ways HPV can be transmitted. There have been reports of HPV transmission through what is referred to as “deep french kissing.” It may also be possible for the virus to be transmitted to an infant through the infected mother’s cervical canal. Virus could also be transmitted by hand to mouth contact in the context of sexual activity.


And for OccamsRazor04

Since you didn't get the first time I posted it....from the same source




Research indicates that approximately 70 percent of cases of oropharynx cancer is caused by HPV16. These cancers have the HPV16 virus detectable in the tumor.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Should just ban cigarettes all together. Just get rid of them, we do not need them as a society. Your ignorantly killing yourself and all the people around you.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


How I choose to kill myself, ignorantly or not, is MY business and not yours to comment on.

This whole thread has been about cancers caused by the HPV virus.

Is your faith-based mentality too inflexible to admit the possibility that smoking may have nothing to do with these cancers?

Then explain why these diseases have not be eradicated by eradicating smoking? People like you are a good part of the reason why we have no cures for cancer yet.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I know.. It was a sarcastic response to stereotypes.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I never once insinuated anything regarding kissing or oral sex. In fact since I've done both for over 30 years I'd say the statement is ludicrous. As dr the surgeon general, he works dr the federal government so I cod care less what he says one way or another. His job is to sculpt policy. I choose to do my own research. The fact that half the "proofs" you've linked actually contradict your thesis and yet you still keep prattling on as though it weren't true is truly amusing. Please keep it up. It's been a slow week and I could use a few more chuckles. If ignorance is bliss you must be smiling like the Cheshire Cat.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Should just ban cigarettes all together. Just get rid of them, we do not need them as a society. Your ignorantly killing yourself and all the people around you.

That's very radical? in a country where the health care of its citizens dosn't fall on the state. But if the state has to pick up the bill for the general health of the population. I'd suggest that smoking should have been left alone. You might have to ask what diseases does smoking actually protect you from? I'm not talking hearsay but where science has actually done some testing. www.livescience.com... If a fraction of the protective benefits of smoking are true, then the cost of care for the increase in Parkinsons alone should blow the budget of any state health system, and the anti smoking campaigns obviously has a hidden adgenda...If we follow the money, we find big Pharma does benefit from from the ensuing Obesity epidemic. Big pharma would be the obvious suspects to first put on the list. As they would have known the overall heath effect of tobacco prohibition, on a given population. Its probably to radical a concept for a lot of people to comprehend, but the facts remain.To sum up health costs will not decrease because of a smoking ban! They will and are going up.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Actually, I am not smiling. Not smiling at all.

For the first time, I truly understand that anti-smoking never was about disease, preventing cancer or about health.

It is and always has been about hate and money. I just never properly understood how much people like you hate people like me. I am truly gob-smacked!

You would rather that people die of preventable cancers than admit you really don't have any basis for the current persecution of smokers. You and people like you are just enjoying the hate to the very core of your heart and soul.

But hey, if I am so wrong...please prove it to me. Show me one disease that is said to be tobacco-related where the incidence of that disease is dropping to reflect the decrease in smoking that has happened over the last 40 years.

Tire of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
At the end of the day I know that if I smoke cigarettes continuously for a couple of hours, and sit in an enclosed space, I will not die.

However, if I were to run a car engine and attempted to sit in that enclosed space, I would die.

It seems obvious to me that human lungs have evolved to deal with smoke. Hell, we used to have fires inside our house, burning fossil fuels. Fire and smoke are part of the development of humanity.

The problem will be when governments have successfully engineered the public to stop smoking, where will the lost tax revenue come from?



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by deessell
 


Well its mores than obvious to me that obesity is the next big disease that needs to be prevented. Lost tax revenue from smokers will be replaced by taxes on food. First it will be unhealthy food but slowly it will grow to include just about any kind of food.

I can't say I am sorry. The rest of the good citizens stood back and let smokers take it up the backside. I will feel really good watching them take their turn!

As for smokers - well history shows what will happen. The more smoking forbidden, the sweeter and more desireable it will become. Smuggling lines are established and growing firmly in all directions

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


How I choose to kill myself, ignorantly or not, is MY business and not yours to comment on.



Most suicidal people are handcuffed and sent to a mental hospital for a 72 hour hold...


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Is your faith-based mentality too inflexible to admit the possibility that smoking may have nothing to do with these cancers?

Then explain why these diseases have not be eradicated by eradicating smoking? People like you are a good part of the reason why we have no cures for cancer yet.


It's simple... Combustible substances, when combusted, produce common carcinogens. Some of those carcinogens are ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation damages cells and DNA, and that causes cancer, which is very well studied and proven to be true.

Covering your teeth, gums, tongue, inside of your mouth, throat, lungs, etc. with a thin layer of smoke and tar from cigarettes, which contains ionizing radiation, is a very good way to damage your cells and DNA in those areas, and cause cancer.

This is already a proven fact, so this entire topic is hogwash.

There are many different ways to introduce ionizing radiation to the body, that is why these cancers have not been eradicated.
edit on 11-8-2013 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeAre0ne

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


How I choose to kill myself, ignorantly or not, is MY business and not yours to comment on.



Most suicidal people are handcuffed and sent to a mental hospital for a 72 hour hold...


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Is your faith-based mentality too inflexible to admit the possibility that smoking may have nothing to do with these cancers?

Then explain why these diseases have not be eradicated by eradicating smoking? People like you are a good part of the reason why we have no cures for cancer yet.


It's simple... Combustible substances, when combusted, produce common carcinogens. Some of those carcinogens are ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation damages cells and DNA, and that causes cancer, which is very well studied and proven to be true.

Covering your teeth, gums, tongue, inside of your mouth, throat, lungs, etc. with a thin layer of smoke and tar from cigarettes, which contains ionizing radiation, is a very good way to damage your cells and DNA in those areas, and cause cancer.

This is already a proven fact, so this entire topic is hogwash.

There are many different ways to introduce ionizing radiation to the body, that is why these cancers have not been eradicated.
edit on 11-8-2013 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



It's sad you sound like a cult member that needs to be deprogramed.
edit on Sun Aug 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
dup removed
edit on Sun Aug 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


Everything I said is a scientific fact. I can prove it to you with experiments, and let you watch it happen in real time. Anyone denying what I said is clearly ignorant of the science.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
they say the government started the anti smoking campaign after they blew up the trinity bomb
it released enough plutonium to give everyone cancer on earth
so they used smoking as a scapegoat for all the increase in cancer from all the nuclear testing

once they can get you to hate someone for as little as smoking they can get you to hate anyone for anything

humans have been around fire since our creation it seems odd that now its the most dangerous thing to be around
when its the reason we are advanced in the first place

there was a 40 year study done by the red cross i believe although i cant seem to find it now
but it kept track of 4000 married couples were only one partner smoked and the other didn't
and after 40 years of being exposed to secondhand smoke there was a 1% difference in cancer and lung related diseases which they said could just be a statistic anomaly

so there conclusion was that there is absolutely no affect from being exposed to secondhand smoke for 40 years



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join