 TheLung Cancer Alliance has been in an anti tobacco pinch for not putting smokingcessation at the top of their agenda. The Lung Cancer Alliance has insisted thatmore be done to detect and cure lung cancer. In response to this they have beencrucified by the anti smokers, who insist that lung cancer must remain 100 %deadly, in order to deter anyone from smoking, and lead down the inevitable pathto the smoke free nirvana of depressomania. The Lung Cancer Alliance recently fell more in line with the Banzhaf Brigades, although they seem to persistthat more should be done to improve survival rates in lung cancer treatment.They even proclaim that neither smokers nor non-smokers 'deserve' to die of lungcancer. That is an almost heretic display of compassion these days.
Examining theLung Cancer Alliance carefully reveals that in one respect they share anaddictive habit with their anti tobacco siblings – the tobacco money habit. Theyare deeply involved in trying to scam more money out of smokers, by trying to force payments out of MSA participants for early lung cancerdetection programmes. How about spending some of the 10 billion dollars of MSAyearly payments for their pretended purpose" Currently that money is squanderedby anti smokers in useless cessation and prevention programmes and by states tobeef up spending.
Let us turn tothe 'proven' assertion that quitting smoking is the best way to 'prevent' lungcancer. The Lung Cancer Alliance reveals some interesting facts, that antismokers like to sweep under the carpet. We examine the distribution of newlydetected lung cancers, according to 'smoking' status, courtesy of Lung Cancer Alliance:
| Status | Lung cancer cases |
| Current smokers | 35 - 40% |
| Former smokers | 50% |
| Never smokers | 10 - 15% |
Note that 10 -15 % of lung cancer cases are detected in never smokers, many of whom have neverbeen around smokers, i.e. not exposed to ETS. How could that be"
Now take a lookat the number of new cases among former and current smokers. That looksremarkably close to the ratio of former smokers versus current smokers in thetotal population. It might even seem that former smokers are overrepresentedamong the cases. And substantial numbers of smokers who quit smoking decades agoget lung cancer anyway.
What seemsalmost completely clear is that smoking cessation is far cry from being a provenway of avoiding lung cancer. In fact, it seems almost futile to quit smoking, ifavoiding lung cancer is the goal. Perhaps the epidemiologcal trick of jumpingfrom one cohort to another simply does not work.
Examining thenumber of lung cancer cases in the US (and other countries, for that matter) itappears that 'something' causes lung cancer" But what" And how to avoid it"
What condition,exposure or habit does the small group of never smokers share with the largegroup of ever smokers that could cause lung cancer"
Suppose it werea habit that occurs more frequently among ever smokers than never smokers. Thenit seems clear from the above, that the smokers have been 'counselled' to quitthe wrong habit. Smokers and non smokers alike are being sacrificed for thegreater benefit of the anti smoking hordes.
When will theanti smokers quit their hate habit so the lung cancer killing can stop"
|
