An Early Warning for Lung Cancer (Newsweek, July 19, 1999) -- This article describes a new, early warning technology for lung cancer detection. Way more than any anti-tobacco propaganda, this is a good way to fight lung cancer.

But beyond the great news that this article conveys there are several important considerations.

The article says: "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 tumours in 27 people compared with the four seen on X-rays. Even better, of the 27 malignancies, 26 were surgically removable."

First of all, it is interesting to see that even cold science does not seem to be able to resist the prejudice against smoking, for 1,000 smokers were selected -- as opposed to either random selection, or non-smokers. One can rightfully argue that since smokers are at greater risk of lung cancer, they are therefore the logical selection. But wait: what about 1,000 non-smokers being tested as well? We all know that lung cancer is not exclusive to smokers. One can argue that the test was not meant to establish the prevalence of lung cancer in smokers, and that maybe there were budget restrictions. Sure -- what about 500 smokers and 500 non-smokers, then? Wouldn't that have been a more efficient test for the money?

The fact that comparison with non-smokers of the same age and socio-economic condition is loudly missing in this test may indicate to many that perhaps there is apprehension about a possible discovery that the percentage of lung cancers in non-smokers could be about the same as it is in smokers -- and that this point could be made by a real, practical test that could not be argued or diffused, not by statistical attributions. And this would blow an immense hole in the smokescreen on smoking and lung cancer.

A test like the one we are discussing is an important verification of reality vs. statistics - not just a statistical extrapolation of about 40+ possible interacting causes in different people from different socio-economic status. The latter is the kind of well-engineered confusion is the bread and butter of the anti-tobacco cartel, and its junk science. It is therefore possible (and quite understandable) that political pressures may have been exerted (above and beyond the existence of plain prejudice by the scientists) on those who selected the subjects for the test.

Be that as it may, this test has already dealt a serious blow to the anti-tobacco cartel - a blow so huge in fact, the cartel stays totally silent on this issue, except for a quiet, slow, inconspicuous drift away from the lung cancer issue in the propaganda -- something that only those who are deeply involved in the fight against politics in science notice. And the mass-media that have sold out to the anti-smoking agenda prefer (in their usual, irresponsible way) to keep the public in ignorance about life-saving technology rather than let a cat out of the bag that could seriously damage the anti-tobacco crusade.

The big-calibre piece of information is contained in the quote above: "… And CT found malignant tumours in 27 people..." Twenty-seven people out of one thousand. The fuzzy anti-tobacco cartel propaganda always projects the implied notion that most smokers "will" die because of lung cancer. Most smokers already overestimate their chances for lung cancer death. Some even think that they have a 70-80 percent chance of lung cancer death. Of course, the antismokers do nothing to correct that misconception, as it helps their political agenda. Rather, and only when it is unavoidable, the cartel mentions the official figure: smokers have only a 10% chance of dying from lung cancer - all of this risk attributed to smoking, of course.

But the CT test on REAL PEOPLE brought this figure down to 2.7% -- nearly 4 times less than the official figure. And remember: there is no comparison with non-smokers! Let us assume as true that smoking really is one of the 40+ concomitant causes of lung cancer, and let us even assume that it is the largest single one. Still one can easily see that, even without complex formulas designed to bamboozle both public and ignorant politicians, the chances of developing smoking-related lung cancer in people over 60 (the most likely to be affected) gravitates probably around 1%.

Yes, that 1% is a guess - but presently, it is a hell of a better guess that all the epidemiological nonsense that, for political reasons, hides incompetence, dishonesty and guess work behind "prestigious" institutions and academic titles.

Gian Turci
FORCES INTERNATIONAL