truth about lung cancer

Forum Index > Smokers Rights > truth about lung cancer > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

by jsidney on Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:33 pm

Sorry, folks. This will be a long post, because I'm a senior matriarch and I have something to say.

Zippo2u opened this discussion with the question: Wouldn't it be better for smokers and non-smokers if they would put more time into finding a cure (for lung cancer) than trying to blame it all on smoking?

First off, for a perspective on our scientific knowledge, try this: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/hell_yeah_hubble.php?utm_source=selectfeed&utm_medium=rss

Everytime we develop a better telescope, we see more and more galaxies. As for our knowledge of viruses and virus caused disease, today we stand at the edge of a vast ocean and we have barely dipped our toe into the water.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=63
Here is Chris Snowden's article on HPV caused cervical cancer, "Nuns, Prostitutes, Witches and Toads".

http://www.cancerworld.org/CancerWorld/getStaticModFile.aspx?id=717
Here is the 2005 Cancer World article "Finding the Viral Link: German virologist Harald zur Hausen was convinced by the early 1970's that the skin wart virus,human papilloma, was implicated in cervical cancer. Thirty years later we stand on the threshold of a vaccine to prevent this major killer of women."

And here are Frank Davis' three articles on smoking and lung cancer. Frank Davis is by no means my only reference, but his writings are easy for the non-scientific layman to understand.

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/4724.html
The Cigarette Hypothesis: " ...Lung cancer was almost unknown before the 20th century ... But there were some puzzles surrounding the hypothesis that smoking caused lung cancer. Principal among these was the fact that people had been happily smoking tobacco for about 500 years without being struck down in droves by lung cancer ..."

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/5041.html
The London Hospitals Study: (The 1950 Doll/Hill study which first linked smoking with lung cancer). " ...The results showed that in 649 cases of lung cancer, 647 were among smokers ... So we ought to ask of the London Hospitals study what fraction of its overall sample population were smokers."

"And this figure is available in Table 4 of the study. There were 2 non-smokers and 647 smokers in the lung cancer group. And there were 27 non-smokers and 622 smokers in the non-lung-cancer control group. So that, in the study as a whole, 97.7% of all patients were smokers. This being so, we would expect that 97.7% of lung cancer patients would also be smokers, if smoking was unconnected to lung cancer. Here we find that 99.7% of them were smokers. Is that particularly alarming?"

"All we have discovered is that in a population in which nearly everybody smoked, nearly everybody with lung cancer also smoked."

(By the way, the more I learn about Dr. Richard Doll, the father of the "smoking causes lung cancer" mantra, the more I am aware that Doll's scientific objectivity was not pure as the driven snow. He had significant conflicting interests throughout his career. Read the comments to these articles. jsidney)

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/13424.html
Human Papillomavirus: ... "I have been interested to learn that, in the past 20 years, it has been established that cervical cancer is caused by Human Papillomavirus, HPV, which infects epidermis and mucous membranes of humans. This makes cervical cancer an infectious disease - and a sexually transmitted disease."

"...if HPV can be shown to cause cancer by infecting mucous membranes of sexual organs, might it also be capable of infecting the mucous membranes of mouth and throat and lungs? According to the authors if a study published in the journal Lung Cancer, HPV may even be the 2nd most important cause of lung cncer after smoking ... HPV has been found in roughly 20-25% of lung cancers in the United States."

"Far higher figures have been found elsewhere. Particular high frequencies of up to 80% were seen in Okinawa (Japan) and Taichung (Taiwan).As HPV testing improves, and new types of HPV are found, it's not implausible to imagine that HPV may be the principal cause not just of 25% of lung cancers, but of almost all of them."

"What a storm that would cause! After all, it has been 'known' for 60 years that smoking causes lung cancer."

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/2752.html#cutid1
In "Questioning Authority", Frank Davis writes of 'authorities': "But do they know everything? And are their opinions to be accepted unquestioningly?"

"Well, no, they don't know everything ... And their opinions should not be accepted unquestioningly. They should be weighed and measured by people with wider non-specialist experience. For authorities are not always right. In fact they are very often wrong. The history of medicine - and indeeed of all sciences - has been a long litany of mistakes."

jsidney

Toker Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 86 Location: California

by jsidney on Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:11 am

http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=129

"Sir Richard Doll: A Questionable Pillar of the Cancer Establishment"

Here is one of many references about Sir Richard Doll's bias and conflicts of interest. The article is long, but exhaustive, and is written in easy to understand language.

I'm probably spouting off in the wrong forum here, but as a senior matriarch I do exhort you to THINK!

jsidney

Toker Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 86 Location: California

by jsidney on Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:07 pm

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

This tells you how the American Cancer Society has managed to waste our donations for 50 years.

jsidney

Toker Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 86 Location: California

by jessicabrown on Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:34 am

http://www.caring.com/copd

this should give you enough information about lung cancer and COPD

jessicabrown Newbie