PRIMARY SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
Back to main page
January 22 - Lung Association Charges Smokers With Child Abuse - "Second-hand smoke is damaging to a child's health and is tantamount to child abuse. The evidence is too compelling to present it in half measures or to worry about political correctness. We have a significant social and health problem that needs public attention and the associated pressure of public intolerance to correct it."
So speaks the Canadian Lung Association. Consider for a moment the implications of this pressure group's call for intolerance. Never mind that the "social and health problem" was no problem at all until groups like the Canadian Lung Association jumped on the anti-tobacco bandwagon and escalated the level of hysteria to justify the public dollars pouring into their "non-profit" coffers. Never mind that passive smoke has never been shown to be hazardous to children, let alone adults. From such prevarications are high salaries and lavish perks bestowed.
What is malevolent about the Canadian Lung Association's blatant call for violence against smokers is that this organization is allowed to exist and enjoy its tax status only by the benevolence of the citizens of Canada, one quarter at least who smoke. It takes its cut from the sale of over-taxed cigarettes then calls for the annihilation of those who fund its operating expenses. A thief is more moral than the Canadian Lung Association since a thief doesn't don the mantle of moral superiority when it assaults his victims.
Please note what the Canadian Lung Association says of asthma in the above story: "A child whose mother smokes half a pack of cigarettes daily has double the risk of developing asthma. A child who has asthma who lives in a home where someone smokes will have three times as many asthma attacks, which can require hospitalization and even cause death."
From the Canadian Lung Association website: "Asthma is not caused by smoking."
Pretty obvious that this health group has a hard time keeping its stories straight.
|January 30, 2002 - RADIATION
FROM MEDICAL PROCEDURES IN THE PATHOGENESIS OF CANCER AND ISCHEMIC HEART
DISEASE - Does smoking cause lung cancer? We realise that just
asking the question (as opposed to making an emphatic statement) gets
antismokers to go ballistic against heresy. However, we are not talking
about religion, fanaticism, or junk science. According to real
science, the question is still open. Here is further support for
the co-factor point we made on our recent
position paper. Dr. Gofman is a scientist with impressive credentials
(that include both a PhD and an MD, important scientific discoveries, and
retirement as a full professor from Berkeley) -- and no connection with
Big Tobacco. He states that ionising radiation in even low-dose medical
applications is a necessary co-factor in the majority of cases of
both cancer and ischemic heart disease. For example, he states that in
1993, radiation was a co-factor in 63% of the deaths from ischemic heart
disease in males and in 78% of females. For all cancer deaths combined in
1988, he says radiation was a co-factor in 74% of male cancer deaths and
50% of all female cancer deaths.
Although he does not deny that smoking is an important co-factor in lung cancer, smoking is not as significant as a co-factor as medical radiation is. Moreover, in the absence of radiation, smoking would need to be combined with other important co-factors (such as genes, or diet) to cause lung cancer. Despite the impeccable credentials, however, Gofman has received only sporadic attention from media and medical establishment. Obviously the government, the physicians, and the big medical radiation supply corporations don't like what he has to say. People must believe that smoking is the main cause of lung cancer – and that political agenda must override any consideration on integrity of science, truth, and information -- let alone menial values such as liberty and choice of lifestyle.
|June 8, 2001 - PER CDC/WHO SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER - "When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then the answer based upon current evidence should be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect." People are astonished when presented with data, collected by organizations that can hardly be described as tools of the tobacco industry, that demonstrate the risk of smokers contracting lung cancer are quite remote. James P. Siepmann, MD lays out the numbers for all to see in this lucid analysis. Dr. Siepmann acknowledges that going against the grain does contain risks to those who risk the wrath of the orthodox. When scientists are silenced by special interest groups we all suffer. When one exposes that silencing we all benefit.|
|June 8, 2001 - Conflicting Evidence - CANCER VIRUS IN SHEEP MAY PROVIDE CLUES TO UNDERSTANDING HUMAN LUNG CANCER, ACCORDING TO HUTCHINSON CENTER STUDY - The study states that "Bronchioalveolar carcinoma, a non-smoking related lung cancer of unknown origin" accounts for 25 percent of lung cancer cases in the U.S. Oops! We're always told that smoking is responsible for 85% to 90% of lung cancer cases. So, what is this 25% unrelated to smoking? Not that it matters, since public health divorced real science long ago. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 4/10/01|
|April 17, 2001 - Conflicting Evidence - SMOKER LUNG CANCER DISCREPANCY A press release from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
casts doubt on the anti-tobacco enterprise's claim that smoking causes 85 to 90 percent of
lung cancer. The release, reporting the progress in a study of bronchioalveolar
carcinoma, asserts that the non-smoking related lung cancer, accounts for 25 percent of
lung-cancer cases in the United States.
Hmmmm. If this "non-smoking related cancer" causes 25 percent of lung cancer how then to reconcile anti-tobacco's contention that only 10 to 15 percent of non-smokers contract lung cancer? Did Hutchinson skip that particular anti-tobacco talking point or, as is more likely, are all these numbers and percentages subject to statistical manipulation at any given time depending upon particular political -- or funding -- considerations?
|February 6 - SMOKING CESSATION AND MORTALITY TRENDS AMONG 118,000 CALIFORNIANS, 1960-1997 (If this link does not work, click here) - There is no proof that smoking causes cancer. And now hard evidence (on actual deaths -- not virtual ones) is beginning to emerge. This is a very interesting recent study by Clark Heath of the American Cancer Society. Note the statement in this abstract: "These results indicate there has been no important decline in either the absolute or relative death rates from all causes and lung cancer for cigarette smokers as a whole compared with never smokers in this large cohort, in spite of a substantial degree of smoking cessation." (emphasis added). If smoking causes cancer - especially lung cancer - and considering a reduction of smokers by over 40% since 1960 when the study began, why don't we see a proportional decrease in lung cancer rates today? Moreover, why does this study (published in 1999) still have to see the front page of newspapers and prime time television, while all the junk science against smoking gets continual coverage? And why hasn't the ACS promoted this study in the same way it promotes antismoking junk science?|
|February 4, 2001 - Conflicting Evidence - DECLINING LUNG CANCER MORTALITY OF YOUNG AUSTRALIAN WOMEN DESPITE INCREASED SMOKING IS LINKED TO REDUCED CIGARETTE 'TAR' YIELDS (If this link does not work, click here) - The European antismoking cartel is considering to forbid (what else?) the "Light", "Extra Light", or "Regular" categories of cigarettes because, they claim, there is no significant difference in risk - they "all" cause cancer in the same amount! But this "study" claims the opposite. Who is lying? Who is incompetent? And why, while smoking has increased, lung cancer has decreased? Isn't the "link" between smoking and lung cancer one of the holy truths that need no proof whatsoever - since there is none? And why has smoking increased while the antismoking propaganda is so effective?|
|January 24, 2001 - SO, WHERE IS THE RISK?
(If this link does not work, click
here) - The "Ninth Report on Carcinogens", issued by the National
Institute of Health last year, for the first time included environmental tobacco smoke,
known also as ETS and secondhand smoke. Considering the lack of evidence
showing that ETS poses any harm as well as the vacating of the Environmental Protection
Agency's secondhand smoke report by a federal judge, the inclusion of ETS signaled that
the NIH is more interested in political agendas than in listing proven carcinogens.
Anti-tobacco duly touted the NIH's "Ninth Report on Carcinogens" as a reason to
ban smoking. Last week the NIH issued an addendum to include Dioxin in the
"Ninth Report on Carcinogens". The addendum contains a startling caveat
regarding the NIH's own reliability in identifying substances that cause harm. "The
report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk, an assessment that
defines the conditions under which the hazard may be unacceptable. The listing of
substances in the report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present
carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives." This admission
renders the NIH's inclusion of ETS on its list of carcinogenic substances
irrelevant. ETS should never have been included in the first place as these analyses
to the NIH make clear:
For reasons still unknown, the NIH has taken some baby steps towards rehabilitating its tattered scientific image. Perhaps the change from an administration that valued societal control over actual science and used emotion and innuendo to enact policy to one based in reality where conclusions are backed up by facts prodded this federal bureaucracy to change its tune. Whatever the reason, its a good sign that the NIH voluntarily corrected its excesses rather than having to be dragged to court like the EPA over its secondhand smoke fraud.
|THE FACTS ABOUT A NEW STUDY ON TOBACCO AND LUNG CANCER - On October 18, 1996 the New York Times Service ran a story on a study which reportedly provided the "missing link" in the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Newspapers throughout the country ran the story on their front pages, heralding this new "discovery." However politically correct the story, which was delivered from an article in Science Magazine might have been, it failed to report the scientific facts about Benzo[a]Pyrene or B[a]P, the compound in tobacco smoke which the study linked to lung cancer.|
|IMAGE PROBLEMS ADD INSULT TO LUNG CANCER, GROUP SAYS - Here is an interesting article on lung cancer which says that 20% of new lung cancer diagnoses are in non-smokers, 50% are in ex-smokers (and leaves only 30% for current smokers). Article also makes an interesting point about how little money is being spend on lung cancer research. If only 50% of the money spent on antitobacco garbage and corrupt, useless junk science was spent in honest, intensive research on cancer, most likely we would not read articles like that today. Very few people can conceive the tremendous expenditure of social resources that antitobacco consumes - while giving back only lies and unreliable information.|
|AN EARLY WARNING FOR LUNG CANCER - " The researchers looked at 1,000 men and women over 60 who had smoked at least a pack of cigarettes a day for 10 years. CT spotted suspicious nodules in 233 people; X-ray caught them in only 68. And CT found malignant tumors in 27 people compared with the four seen on X-rays. Even better, of the 27 malignancies, 26 were surgically removable. " This figure mirrors other research indicating that fewer than 3% of smokers get lung cancer.|
NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER (According to WHO 1999 Data) - This super-documented
piece from The Journal of Theoretics shows
once again how one of the major scares about smoking (lung cancer) is in actuality an
exaggeration so great, it can safely be called a fraud.
Smoking and lung cancer have become a synonym due to a relentless promotion that is decades old. Those who dare to disagree are called "moppets of the tobacco industry". With the subjugation of the tobacco industry, the major opponent has been silenced.
Smoking and lung cancer have been elevated to a dogmatic association that cannot even be discussed aymore. Even those who defend the right of choice are often victims of this impression, and argue solely on the basis of free speech or smoking segregation, but avoid health issues -- unless they are as blatant as secondhand smoke is. Very few call medical frauds on tobacco by their name anymore.
But no matter what the politics are, reality is different. This is because of three unquestionable, fundamental elements: