Cancer Cure?

[Indecisi0n]

A driver at work says he knows the cure.

 

[vantexan]

No one needs to smoke. But only 10% of regular smokers develop lung cancer, whereas 20% of people who die from lung cancer are non-smokers. The greater risks from smoking are cardio-vascular. My only point was that smoking does not cause lung cancer, but most people think it does due to over-hyped propaganda.

But looking at your stats 80% who die from lung cancer are smokers. And as you pointed out it leads also to heart disease and other illnesses like emphysema as well as other cancers. We've all heard of people who smoked into their 90's but that's the exception.

 

[Wally]

No one needs to smoke. But only 10% of regular smokers develop lung cancer, whereas 20% of people who die from lung cancer are non-smokers. The greater risks from smoking are cardio-vascular. My only point was that smoking does not cause lung cancer, but most people think it does due to over-hyped propaganda.

The CDC says cigarette smokers are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke. That sounds like a cause to me.

 

[BrownArmy]

Pretty sure smoking doesn’t help your chances of developing lung cancer.

 

[vantexan]

Pretty sure smoking doesn’t help your chances of developing lung cancer.

Is there a "not" missing in that sentence?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Pretty sure smoking doesn’t help your chances of developing lung cancer.

That's all I'm saying. It is a risk factor. It increases your risk of developing cancer. It does not cause it. I've explained in another post the types of things that actually cause cancer, such as radiation, but I feel it is important to distinguish between something causing cancer and something increasing the risk of developing cancer. Most people seem to think it's the same thing.

 

[It will be fine]

That's all I'm saying. It is a risk factor. It increases your risk of developing cancer. It does not cause it. I've explained in another post the types of things that actually cause cancer, such as radiation, but I feel it is important to distinguish between something causing cancer and something increasing the risk of developing cancer. Most people seem to think it's the same thing.

In what way is that an important distinction?

 

[bacha29]

not too mention its a miserable way to die

Especially brain cancer. I saw what it did to my vibrant and quite alert mother over a span of just 7 months.

 

[bacha29]

Interesting. Time will tell.

A cure for cancer? Israeli scientists say they think they found one

The Nazi's were rumored to have one too. With all the various types of cancer and the many forms each type comes in .....more effective treatments? Yes but a one size fits all flat out cure is decades if not generations away.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

In what way is that an important distinction?

Because one is true, the other is not. I guess it doesn't matter if truth isn't a big deal to you. Smokers are grouped into a single category, but smoking three packs a day for 30 years is different, and carries with it a higher risk factor, than someone who maybe smokes a few times a year. Insurance health questionaires don't distinguish between the two, so that's a practical way in which the distinction matters. I'm sure you can think of others if you apply yourself.

 

[It will be fine]

Because one is true, the other is not. I guess it doesn't matter if truth isn't a big deal to you. Smokers are grouped into a single category, but smoking three packs a day for 30 years is different, and carries with it a higher risk factor, than someone who maybe smokes a few times a year. Insurance health questionaires don't distinguish between the two, so that's a practical way in which the distinction matters. I'm sure you can think of others if you apply yourself.

That’s your best reason? Lol. You’re mad because insurance charges you more for smoking. They don’t do that willy nilly, they do it because smoking is bad for you and will lead to an earlier death than you’d have otherwise. I have no idea why someone would take issue with that other than as a mental exercise to justify their poor life choices.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

That’s your best reason? Lol. You’re mad because insurance charges you more for smoking. They don’t do that willy nilly, they do it because smoking is bad for you and will lead to an earlier death than you’d have otherwise. I have no idea why someone would take issue with that other than as a mental exercise to justify their poor life choices.

That's not what I'm arguing. Maybe you should read things over and try again. Thanks for playing.

 

[It will be fine]

That's not what I'm arguing. Maybe you should read things over and try again. Thanks for playing.

You aren’t arguing anything. You’re being pseudo intellectual. You’ve offered nothing that makes the distinction between smoking causing cancer and it increasing the risk of cancer a meaningful distinction. It makes no practical difference. Blabbering about how one is truth is pedantic nonsense.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You aren’t arguing anything. You’re being pseudo intellectual. You’ve offered nothing that makes the distinction between smoking causing cancer and it increasing the risk of cancer a meaningful distinction. It makes no practical difference. Blabbering about how one is truth is pedantic nonsense.

Ok, you win.

 

[BrownFlush]

Because one is true, the other is not. I guess it doesn't matter if truth isn't a big deal to you. Smokers are grouped into a single category, but smoking three packs a day for 30 years is different, and carries with it a higher risk factor, than someone who maybe smokes a few times a year. Insurance health questionaires don't distinguish between the two, so that's a practical way in which the distinction matters. I'm sure you can think of others if you apply yourself.

One of the things that have been taken out of tobacco is the enjoyment factor.
You smoke? You chew? That usually means a pack or two a day.
Big difference in that and the person who enjoys a cigarette in the morning with coffee and one after supper.
I know one person who does this.
Nicotine is a helluva drug.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

 

[floridays]

You aren’t arguing anything. You’re being pseudo intellectual. You’ve offered nothing that makes the distinction between smoking causing cancer and it increasing the risk of cancer a meaningful distinction. It makes no practical difference. Blabbering about how one is truth is pedantic nonsense.

I think he did.
If in no other way he made an argument you would make pertaining to something you support.

Care to be confronted?

 

[floridays]

Ok, you win.

No, she didn't. You know she didn't as well.

 

[trickpony1]

How long will it be before these researchers are suicided?

 

[Fred's Myth]

The Nazi's were rumored to have one too. With all the various types of cancer and the many forms each type comes in .....more effective treatments? Yes but a one size fits all flat out cure is decades if not generations away.

Are you a research doctor? Please state your bona fides to make such a statement. What specialty is your doctorate in?