 The
Lung Cancer Alliance has been in an anti tobacco pinch for not putting smoking
cessation at the top of their agenda. The Lung Cancer Alliance has insisted that
more be done to detect and cure lung cancer. In response to this they have been
crucified 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 path
to the smoke free nirvana of depressomania.
The Lung Cancer Alliance recently
fell more in line with the Banzhaf Brigades, although they seem to persist
that 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 lung
cancer. That is an almost heretic display of compassion these days.
Examining the
Lung Cancer Alliance carefully reveals that in one respect they share an
addictive habit with their anti tobacco siblings – the tobacco money habit. They
are deeply involved in trying to scam more money out of smokers, by
trying to force payments out of MSA participants for early lung cancer
detection programmes. How about spending some of the 10 billion dollars of MSA
yearly payments for their pretended purpose? Currently that money is squandered
by anti smokers in useless cessation and prevention programmes and by states to
beef up spending.
Let us turn to
the 'proven' assertion that quitting smoking is the best way to 'prevent' lung
cancer. The Lung Cancer Alliance reveals some interesting facts, that anti
smokers like to sweep under the carpet. We examine the distribution of newly
detected 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 never
been around smokers, i.e. not exposed to ETS. How could that be?
Now take a look
at the number of new cases among former and current smokers. That looks
remarkably close to the ratio of former smokers versus current smokers in the
total population. It might even seem that former smokers are overrepresented
among the cases. And substantial numbers of smokers who quit smoking decades ago
get lung cancer anyway.
What seems
almost completely clear is that smoking cessation is far cry from being a proven
way of avoiding lung cancer. In fact, it seems almost futile to quit smoking, if
avoiding lung cancer is the goal. Perhaps the epidemiologcal trick of jumping
from one cohort to another simply does not work.
Examining the
number of lung cancer cases in the US (and other countries, for that matter) it
appears 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 large
group of ever smokers that could cause lung cancer?
Suppose it were
a habit that occurs more frequently among ever smokers than never smokers. Then
it seems clear from the above, that the smokers have been 'counselled' to quit
the wrong habit. Smokers and non smokers alike are being sacrificed for the
greater benefit of the anti smoking hordes.
When will the
anti smokers quit their hate habit so the lung cancer killing can stop?
|
