The Lung Cancer Alliance is a
newcomer in the Healthist crowd. It declares that it will take 'no more
lung cancer'. It promises new approaches to combat this disease. Whether
this promise will materialize is yet to be seen. There are no visible signs that
the Lung Cancer Alliance desires to end the persecution of smokers. But little
signs of compassion are visible. Nobody, not even smokers, 'deserve' lung
cancer. That is where the compassion ends for now.
One welcome
approach by the Lung Cancer Alliance to the issue, is a
junk
science study on lung cancer in never smokers. This
has the interest of smokers. We too are interested in knowing how to reduce the
risks of lung cancer - without giving up our smoking, obviously. After
all, for the smoker, foregoing smoking for the benefit of living longer is to no
avail. For the smoker, a longer life contains the prospect of enjoying
more years smoking!
The study is by
one Assistant Professor Heather Wakelee of Stanford University. Let us see
what we can garner from the study.
First there is
the usual passive smoke garble. The study parrots ACS claims about ETS and lung
cancer. Proclamations follow about lung cancer rates dropping in response to
lower smoking rates. The good researcher licks the jackboots of the antismoking
troopers, in order to appease them.
Professor
Heather has found out that donning knee pads and servicing Big Cancer is part of
the research game, unless you want your funding to dry out mysteriously.
Just ask James E. Enstrom or Brad Rodu what happens if you stand up against the
cancer barons. Even
Michael Siegel
is feeling the flail, and he is just speaking up against outdoor smoking bans.
Pavlovian conditioning at work.
One particular
form of lung cancer stands out. Adenocarcinoma makes up a larger
proportion of cancers among never smokers and former smokers than current
smokers. It might be fair to establish that adenocarcinoma seems to be a 'non
smokers' cancer. Perhaps the smokers are infested by this form of lung cancer,
by socializing too much with never smokers. Passive never smoking.
Let's ban never smokers from the workplaces of smokers, to protect the smokers
from the lung cancers of never smokers.....
Another
interesting observation is that Swedish cigarette smokers have lower lung cancer
rates than smokers of other countries. It seems like Swedish pesky smokers do
not die at the rates prescribed by the health fascists. Shame be unto those
dastardly Swedish cigarette smokers!
On a different
note, female never smokers are about twice as likely as men to have 'non smoking
related (sic!) lung cancers' than males. Take that, never smoking
females!
The study does
not establish whether there is an actual increase in the number of non smoking
related cancers. Thank you for providing us with this information. What it
means is that there is no decrease in this form of lung cancer, despite
lower smoking rates, and less passive smoking going on. So much for the
cancer czars claims that passive smoke is a cause of lung cancer
in non smokers.
The final words
of the study are worthy of quotiation:
”With lung
cancer persisting as the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United
States, research into the epidemiology of lung cancer in never smokers
should be an importantpublic health priority.”
So much for the
anti smoking cartel promise of the lung cancer free utopia of tobaccophobia.
Lung cancer is not disappearing at all.
Events will
show whether the Lung Cancer Alliance will make a difference to lung cancer.
How long will it be before the ACS empire strikes at this attempt at pillaging
territory from its cancer fiefdom?
We will see.
Time to suck a cancer stick.
|
