The healthist propaganda is loud and clear – and it is not only about smoking. It wants us to believe that if we eliminate all the “causes” of cancer, cancer won’t come. Eminently logical – if only we knew what actually causes cancer… and assuming that we can eliminate causes, as one of the main ones is breathing!
Having said that, let’s talk about lung cancer (LC) and smoking – an issue that even the most committed opponents of antismoking propaganda don’t dare touch with a 10-foot pole because it’s one of the super-holy grails of the antismoking public health fraud. “Everybody knows” that “smoking causes cancer” — and arguing against that would mean “losing credibility” in the public discourse and looking like “lunatics”. It follows that all the defenders of smoking manage to get the dirty end of the stick because the elimination of active smoking is at the basis of smoking bans and also at the basis of the passive smoke fraud. …And then those defenders wonder why they get bans all the times!
Health – no longer liberty – is the primary value of society, get it?… As smoking “causes” cancer, then… the liberty to do so is “disease”. The “ownership of your body” argument is taken care of by “public health” by stating that such ownership costs money to the collective, thus you are entitled to such private ownership ONLY if you manage it according to what “public health” (the state) establishes. In short, the management of your life is under licence to operate in the same way that a pub owner has licence to sell liquor!. Such corporate approach between state and private property is a quintessential element of the fascist political and economic doctrine. Never say that “public health” is not fascism.
Back to the point, one of the battle horses of antismoking propaganda is “premature death” from smoking-and-lung-cancer (please, say that in one single breath, it’s important for association!). The fact that the years are lost after the age of 75-77 is to be underplayed, of course, otherwise the popular fear may not be strong enough.
What would happen if we could eliminate lung cancer? Let us consult one of the holy grails of “public health”, the National Cancer Institute. Here is the appropriate link, that will open for you in another window.
In the page you see, select mortality, lung & bronchus cancer, and any race/ethnicity in the appropriate rows, then click “Search”. You will see a table full of data. Select graph 92. You will see the graphs we reproduce in this page, and that we enclose to this article in PDF format you obtain by clicking here.
The graph on the left shows that in 2004 in the USA 2,401,000 person/years were lost due to LC. Impressive and scary, isn’t it? That’s why this is the scarecrow the ministries of “health” fling in your face to scare you to death into political obedience. Hang in there and look further. The figure represents 0.8% of the 300 million person years theoretically lost in the USA. Thus, if lung cancer were eliminated, the current average life would increase by 0.64 years — about seven months. But keep on reading, there is more good news coming.
The sum of the person/year/lost (PYL) for ALL cancers is 7,674,000, or 2.55% of the total of the USA person/years. By eliminating all the cancers there are, the gain in the average life would be 2.04 years. Simply put, Mr. Average would die at, say, 83.3 years instead of 81.26, costing society 2.04 more years of pensions, hospital care and, most likely, very expensive long-term disease.
The graph on the right shows that a person who dies of LC loses an average of 15.2 person/years – an average that includes the lung cancer of smokers and non smokers. Given that only 2 smokers out of 10 (1/5) stumble on lung cancer, Mr. Average Smoker would lose about three years of longevity because of lung cancer; we could be generous and bring that up to four because of all the other “smoking-related” diseases.
Simply put, in the worst case Mr. Smoker would die at, say, 77.26 instead of 81.26, saving society four years of pensions and other assistance, to say nothing of hospital care because in most cases he/she would die of fast diseases such as LC or heart attack.
There you go, see? You can find out by yourself: you don’t need an antismoking “expert” in white coat to con you. Happy smoking.
One last thing. All of the above ASSUMING THAT:
• Smoking is ACTUALLY the cause of LC or heart disease.
• The data reported is reliable.
• The data processing can filter out the concomitant factors as needed.
• The data are not influenced by biases and political agenda – and in this day and age, can you REALLY believe that?
For more information on the “Potential Years Lost” scam, visit Miserable Gains, or: the Fraud of the Potential Years of Life Lost in The Evidence Section.