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

in that same study they also noted that the ones that were exposed to second hand smoke had significantly less asthma

so being exposed to some secondhand smoke is actually helpful


they also say that smoking is one of the most helpful things for most mental disorders

reply to post by dean007


dean007

You are talking about the study by Enstrom and Kabat that ran for almost 40 years in California

www.bmj.com...

The American Cancer Society funded the study for like 36 years but when the results were not to their liking, they ordered Enstrom to drop the study without publishing it.

Enstrom appoached Philip Morris and got $150,000 in funding and published the study anyway. It was the most peer-review study that the British medical Journal had ever published. Enstrom was seriously attacked by anti-smokers. The biggest claim was that for the time period of the study, the control group was not really a control group because "everyone" was exposed to second hand smoke in those days.

Enstrom also published a study that showed that the particulate of diesal fuel did not cause cancer because it was too large to lodge deeply in the lungs (2.5 microns. this really pissed off the EPA because they wanted to pass legislation against diesal fuel.

The University of California is trying to fire Enstrom and the entire scandal is now before the Courts.

Enstrom is vigorously defending himself against the anti-smoking crowd

link.springer.com...


Tired of Control Freaks

When it comes to the second hand smoke issue touted by the 'smoking is killing everybody crowd',
check out this article:

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

".....Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers......"

See whole article here:
news.heartland.org...

reply to post by AlienView


Yeah - I am fully aware of the issues with the EPA report and how they used a lower confidence interval in order to get the results they wanted.

I am also fully aware of the evidence that kids exposed to second hand smoke have far less allergies and asthma than kids who aren't and that the biological mechanism by which that happens has been documented.

I guess some people hate so bad, deep down in their souls, or are so addicted to money and power that they just don't care is kids end up with a life-long crippling disease.

Just like they don't care to work on curing cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Yes, because big tobacco and big oil never pay people off to release propaganda. That never happens...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Just like they don't care to work on curing cancer.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"...

You do realize that most anti-smokers lost loved ones to tobacco-induced cancer right? You do realize the most cancer research foundations are anti-smokers right?

anti smokers are just like a religious cult and should be treated as such
they don't like smoking and that's all they need
it doesn't matter if the facts don't back it up because in their minds they think there right
when confronted with facts they start shouting out things that will try to quite you down

reply to post by dean007


Its not really rocket science, where is the really big money going to be made with an aging population? Altzhiemers, and Parkinsons? What stops or delays the onset of these two scourges, Nicotine!, and its various effects, some researchers think that a fungus crosses the blood brain barrier, The onset in many cases it seems is a fungal infection of the toe nail. Nicotine is antifungal. Nicotine therefore is a medicine, and who has the god given right to charge for and administer medicines? why big Pharma. of course.To reap the massive profit of this, You cant really have a significant proportion of the population medicating themselves, So it was easy to get the anti smoking ball rolling. You can hear them chuckling . "So what if they get obese, we have the medication, were selling more insulin, in fact if they want to smoke we have E ciggys. In fact the general populations health has definiatly taken a turn for the worse since we started the anti smoking campaign, and our profits are climbing"
alzheimers-review.blogspot.co.nz...

reply to post by WeAre0ne


WeAreOne

To dismiss information based solely on source is just about the most stupid thing an intelligent person can do.

Of course Big Tobacco puts their own spin on things. Of course, Big Pharma does the same (who do you think are funding anti-tobacco). To be honest, since the anti-smoking campaigns have started both Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and their flunkies, Big Cancer have ALL profited. I am confident that at the end of the day, Big Pharma is heavily invested in Big Tobacco and vice versa. It ain't personal, its business!

However, and this is a big however, the FACTS are indisputable and don't include whatever studies you care to discuss.

Men quit smoking in droves since 1965. That is almost 50 years ago. If smoking CAUSED OP cancers. Then OP cancers should be decreasing. But OP cancers are not decreasing. They are increasing. Female smoking peaked in 1975. That was 45 years ago.

Don't bother giving me any links to any more studies. I have been reading study and study for over 6 years.

The simple FACT, my friend, is that if smoking caused OP cancers, then OP cancers should be decreasing dramatically by now and they are NOT. That is what is happening in the real world. The world I live in.

And as a matter of FACT, lung cancer isn't decreasing dramatically either. And neither is cervical cancer and a host of other cancers. As a matter of FACT, my friend, neither is any other "smoking-related" disease.

Now you can continue to support anti-tobacco and anti-obesity and anti-alcohol until the cows come home, but until we stand together and get them to throw some serious cash into HPV research, don't be surprised when your non-smoking loved ones get and die from "smoking-related" diseases.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


cancers take time to develope.. they dont generally develope immediately.

if they stopped in the 60's it could still appear in the 90's.. give it a few more decades before you make this judgement.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I didn't dismiss anything... If I recall, it is the scientific facts that I posted earlier that got dismissed. I even got insulted after posting them.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
The simple FACT, my friend, is that if smoking caused OP cancers, then OP cancers should be decreasing dramatically by now and they are NOT. That is what is happening in the real world. The world I live in.

And as a matter of FACT, lung cancer isn't decreasing dramatically either. And neither is cervical cancer and a host of other cancers. As a matter of FACT, my friend, neither is any other "smoking-related" disease.

I'm sorry, why should cancers be decreasing? I've read several studies that claim adult smoking rates remain somewhat steady, maybe a very very small decline... But do your statistics account for smokeless tobacco rates as well? Smokeless tobacco rates are increasing!

I know "dip" is getting popular with young adults these days, which are causing various lip, gum, and cheek cancers. Snuff, dip, and chewing tobacco increase the risk of oral cancer %50.

Have you ever met Rick Bender?



You going to try to tell this guy he just had HPV? Good luck with that.

Smokeless Tobacco Rates on the Rise

More Americans are turning to smokeless tobacco because of laws that prohibit smoking in public places such as bars, restaurants, and airplanes -- and also because smokeless forms can be used in offices and on the job, Pechacek says.

reply to post by WeAre0ne


WeAreOne,

The medical community is the one saying that OP cancers are rising dramatically because of HPV! That is what the original post was about. They are now testing OP cancers and are advising that the vast majority of the tumors are HPV positive and blaming increases in the practice of oral sex as the cause.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by WeAre0ne


WeAreOne

I have no need to tell Rick Bender anything. If your doctor tells you that tobacco CAUSED your cancer, that is all you would know.

As for dip and smokeless tobacco being on the rise, that has happened since the smoking bans came in. About 10 years ago.

According to the original article, the increase in OP started about 30 years ago.

As for proof that HPV CAUSES oral cancer, I posted the scientist who did the laboratory work and proved it!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by WeAre0ne
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

Yes, because big tobacco and big oil never pay people off to release propaganda. That never happens...

Funny you say that. The ACA did not fund the Enstrom study, big tobacco companies did. He never disclosed this, which is why he got in trouble with his University, along with the fact they tried to ban Tobacco money from funding smoking research and he rallied for big Tobacco to fight that.

In the Enstrom study it is 100% impossible to determine who was and who was not exposed to second hand smoke, yet they make claims about second hand smoke. Basically you could have a best friend that smokes 3 packs a day, and you spend 16 hours with him inhaling second hand smoke, and you are considered as being exposed to NO second hand smoke in the Enstrom study. You could spend every night in a smoke filled bar and be considred exposed to NO second hand smoke. It's a joke and pure tobacco propaganda.

Enstrom wrote a letter to Phillip Morris that stated he needed a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."
legacy.library.ucsf.edu...

Originally posted by dean007
anti smokers are just like a religious cult and should be treated as such
they don't like smoking and that's all they need
it doesn't matter if the facts don't back it up because in their minds they think there right
when confronted with facts they start shouting out things that will try to quite you down

And what facts would those be? The only facts that exist support smoking causes cancer.

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by dean007

 

Its not really rocket science, where is the really big money going to be made with an aging population? Altzhiemers, and Parkinsons? What stops or delays the onset of these two scourges, Nicotine!, and its various effects, some researchers think that a fungus crosses the blood brain barrier, The onset in many cases it seems is a fungal infection of the toe nail. Nicotine is antifungal. Nicotine therefore is a medicine, and who has the god given right to charge for and administer medicines? why big Pharma. of course.To reap the massive profit of this, You cant really have a significant proportion of the population medicating themselves, So it was easy to get the anti smoking ball rolling. You can hear them chuckling . "So what if they get obese, we have the medication, were selling more insulin, in fact if they want to smoke we have E ciggys. In fact the general populations health has definiatly taken a turn for the worse since we started the anti smoking campaign, and our profits are climbing"
alzheimers-review.blogspot.co.nz...

edit on 11-8-2013 by anonentity because: correction

edit on 11-8-2013 by anonentity because: correction

edit on 11-8-2013 by anonentity because: correction

edit on 11-8-2013 by anonentity because: (no reason given)

Please cite the peer reviewed source for health has declined due to people smoking less. Thanks.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by WeAre0ne

 

And as a matter of FACT, lung cancer isn't decreasing dramatically either. And neither is cervical cancer and a host of other cancers. As a matter of FACT, my friend, neither is any other "smoking-related" disease.

Lung cancer rates decline nationwide

The decrease in lung cancer cases corresponds closely with smoking patterns across the nation. In the West, where smoking prevalence is lower among men and women than in other regions, lung cancer incidence is decreasing faster. Studies show declines in lung cancer rates can be seen as soon as five years after smoking rates decline.

You have opinions, not facts. Fact is the facts don't support your position, at all.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by WeAre0ne

 

WeAreOne,

The medical community is the one saying that OP cancers are rising dramatically because of HPV! That is what the original post was about. They are now testing OP cancers and are advising that the vast majority of the tumors are HPV positive and blaming increases in the practice of oral sex as the cause.

Tired of Control Freaks

Source that. You make claims and never source them. I already SOURCED you are wrong. Tobacco is STILL the #1 cause of OP cancer. I sourced it even.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Sigh - OccamsRazor04 - you are beginning to wear on my nerves. Please go back to the original post and read the linked source.

or better yet - google "dramatic increase in HPV oral-phanageal cancers" for yourself

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Sigh - OccamsRazor04 - you are beginning to wear on my nerves. Please go back to the original post and read the linked source.

or better yet - google "dramatic increase in HPV oral-phanageal cancers" for yourself

Tired of Control Freaks

So in other words you can't back up your statements. Thought so. How about, I prove you wrong, again?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This chart clearly shows a difference in HPV related OP cancer and non HPV related cancer. This 100% means HPV is "a" cause of OP cancer, not "the" cause of OP cancer. Tobacco related HPV is still the most prevalent form of OP cancer, and has a far higher mortality rate. Your suggestion that HPV causes all OP cancer is flat out wrong, and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

You're wrong, again. I proved it, again. You can not quote a source on your position, again.

Give up, although I know you won't, you're a Control Freak.

ETA: From your sources you linked.

Smokers are many times more likely than non-smokers to develop these cancers.

People with oral and oropharyngeal cancer linked with HPV infection tend to be younger and are less likely to be smokers and drinkers.

From 2006-2010, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx was 62 years of age


Oropharyngeal cancers that contain HPV DNA tend to have a better outlook than those without HPV.

So basically younger people are getting HPV related OP cancer, and older people are getting tobacco related OP cancer (which makes sense based on tobacco habits).

People with HPV AND who smoke AND who drink are very high risk to get OP cancer, and they are more likely to develop the high mortality versions. People with HPV who do not smoke are low risk, and develop more easilly cured versions of OP cancer.