Does it always precede the cancer? I haven't found info indicating that it's always the case.
Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists
- Thread starter BuGlen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I can understand it making your head hurt. My stress seems to be mutiplied by worrying too much about how negatively most people would view my interest in pursuing this, or even just contemplating it. For example, my family, who are critical about my vaping. Pretty much anybody else, too.
I can keep that from stopping me, and can assure myself I'm doing the right thing, but I definitely feel the stress.
I am far from agreeing with CarolT that what are deemed to be smoking related illnesses are really caused by infections. It looks very likely that infections play a role, possibly a huge role. And it sure seems that ignoring infections in the research is causing further over-estimating the diseases and deaths from smoking.
I also believe there is dishonesty involved in ignoring the role of infections, and that something must be done to stop this fraud. But declaring that infections are the real cause, I'm not there, nor am I likely to ever believe there to be only one cause, whatever that may cause may be. I still believe that at least one of the causes for at least most of those diseases is smoking.
Maybe the way to look at it is, most people aren't going to pay any attention to this until it becomes a lot less of a fringe theory, but it's good that a few people start to think about it.
I agree with all this. It's quite a leap to take on board that sucking down a cocktail of carcinogens all day every day for decades has no role in the subsequent development of cancer.
Here's a thought. I'm pretty sure I've heard that they did smoking experiments on rats and produced cancer. Does human cytomegalovirus get to live in rat lungs? Or do they have rat CMV.
The question is not whether carcinogens could cause lung cancers. The question is why of all carcinogens we only focus on those in tobacco smoke, while we keep mum on the ones that, for example, affect the non-smokers to the extent of 33% of lung cancer cases. If it were 0.33% I could understand the concept of "rare disease" and the "need" to focus funds on the common ones. But it's 33% not 0.33%. Looks to me like "public health" is misdirecting funding.
80% of US population are non-smokers, how does it help them that we keep pouring the lung cancer research money in further researching smoking?
Last edited:
It's ready right now to raise suspicion that the anti-smokers' health claims are false. First of all, their definition of causation is fraudulent because it's cynically designed to ignore reasonable alternative explanations. And this evidence shows that reasonable alternative explanations exist and are not merely theoretical. And the fact that infections cause cancer and other disease has been proven and shown to the world. The fact that ignoring the role of infection results in false blame of smoking has also been proven - but not shown to the world, because the anti-smokers don't it to be known. Interestingly, this was in the very same journal, The International Journal of Epidemiology, where the CMV & heart disease study was published!
"It is widely believed that some sexually transmitted pathogen plays a key role in the aetiology of cervical cancer. However, although certain human papillomaviruses are strongly implicated, the pathogen responsible and the mechanism of action remain to be finally characterized. The correlation between cigarette smoking and sexual activity that exists in most cultures therefore makes evaluation of the potential additional role of smoking difficult, due to confounding with the presence of the aetiological pathogen. Epidemiological studies of the association between smoking and cervical cancer have adjusted for the lifetime number of sexual partners as a proxy measure of the presence of the pathogen and, in most cases, the association has diminished but remained statistically significant. Since the use of a proxy will tend to result in underestimation of the effect of the aetiological pathogen on risk of cervical cancer, however, the adjustment is likely to be insufficient, thus resulting in an overestimation of the adjusted or 'independent' effect of smoking. In an attempt to address this concern we used a simulation approach to investigate whether a substantial 'independent' association between smoking and cervical cancer might be expected as a result of the use of a poor proxy for the aetiological pathogen, even if there is no true effect of smoking. Using realistic estimates of the association between the presence of the aetiological pathogen and both smoking and risk of cervical cancer, 'independent' relative risks for cigarette smoking of two and above were generated. It is therefore plausible that the observed 'independent' effect of cigarette smoking on cervical cancer is due to residual confounding."
Cigarette smoking as a potential cause of cervical cancer: has confounding been controlled? - PubMed - NCBI
Cigarette smoking as a potential cause of cervical cancer: has confounding been controlled? - PubMed - NCBI
When their paper was written, an odds ratio of around ten was considered the best current estimate for the risk of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer. Since then, improvements in the technical methods of detecting HPV have led to its detection in virtually 100% of cervical cancers -- and the OR for HPV has soared to over 350. This high odds ratio has made the presence of confounding in all studies claiming to find a smoking risk a certainty. A high odds ratio has an even more powerful effect than a lower one. And Phillips & Smith's model was confirmed by Bosch et al.:
Sir -- In the article by Phillips and Smith "Cigarette smoking as a cause of cervical cancer: Has confounding been controlled? it is argued that the increase in risk of cervical cancer associated with smoking observed in some studies could well be explained by an insufficient adjustment by some measures of exposure to the aetiological pathogen. Recent developments have shown that the major risk factor of human cervical cancer is human papillomavirus (HPV). We have completed five case control studies on cervical cancer where the prevalence of HPV DNA had been assessed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Our results show that the association between HPV and cervical cancer is very strong with odds ratios ranging from 15 to 100. Many of the 'traditional' risk factors strongly associated with cervical neoplasia in either pre-invasive or invasive forms, such as the number of sexual partners or age at first sexual intercourse were not associated with cervical cancer among women who were HPV DNA positive, while the association persisted among the HPV DNA negative. In our data the association between smoking status and cervical cancer the association was weak with odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 after adjustment for major confounders including HPV status. However, when HPV positive women were examined, thus removing those with potential underdetected HPV, the odds ratios of cervical cancer in five data sets (3 on invasive cancer and 2 on CIN II lesions) were consistently and statistically not different from 1.
"Real data are thus in agreement with the model proposed by Phillips and Smith."
Industry Documents Digital Library
Yet in the 21 years since this exchange was published, they have made no attempt to clean up the anti-smokers' epidemiology. They know it's defective, and they condone it."Real data are thus in agreement with the model proposed by Phillips and Smith."
Industry Documents Digital Library
What do you mean by "To the point where there is a stronger correlation between them and lung cancers than between smoking and said cancers"? If you mean odds ratios, few if any studies have figured odds ratios or relative risks. They're reporting percentages of tumors with HPV. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Viruses, not just HPV. If you're saying it's not important to focus on that, I guess I'd agree. If it's true, though, it's a good point to make to people.
I'm looking for where you might have gotten that 33% figure from, but a quick search isn't getting me there. Maybe you can save me from further searching to find that number.
It seems to me that ALL that can truthfully be said RE: smoking/lung cancer, is "lung cancer is more common among smokers than among non-smokers," and that's it, PERIOD. Because you're right; they're taking this association and assuming that smoking is the sole cause of this higher prevalence, rather than any other cause, because they AREN'T EVEN LOOKING at anything else that may contribute to the higher prevalence.
Although my father died of lung cancer, and smoked since he was <12, he was also a real hippy, back in the 60s when there really were real hippies, and he embraced everything that went with that status -- drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex, communal living, the whole ball of wax. So while I'm sure that 55 yrs of smoking did his lungs no favors, all that other activity probably had its own consequences, leading to his cancer.
Andria
From the "smoking doubles your cancer risk" anti-smoking propaganda.
However looking at it closely now I notice that the figure is variable depending at which Antz you look, ACS quotes a whooping 20 fold risk increase for lung cancer (but admits that on all cancers combined the non-smokers account for 30% of cases).
I believe it was one of the documents on your site, saying that a virus of some sorts (not always the same) was nearly always found in cancer tumours. Smokers and non-smokers alike.
But if you only look at lung cancers, which are a lot more likely to have smoking as a contributing cause, does that hold up?Including lung cancers.
Dunno. But what if smoking is just a favouring factor in most cases? The usual explanations for non-smoking lung cancers are radon and asbestos. Are we happy with that explanation for the cause? Smoking-radon-asbestos? Nothing else?
Why if the government is so concerned by lung cancers (to the extent of banning smoking everywhere they could), the building code does not include an obligation for builders to check/certify radon levels before sale? Where are the graphic warnings in my basement?
I think the answer is that nobody knows, though some people are sure they do know. Maybe asbestosis is an exception where they really do know the cause.
Whatever, smoking can't explain all lung cancers. Unless you go with some super-charged version of SHS theory I guess, like I once sat in a room with a smoker. So there must be other things out there. That's why I think the virus theory deserves some attention. It may not be the sole cause of all cancers but it could well be part of the picture.
They say the odds of developing lung cancer begin to fall after you quit smoking. It slowly drops but never quite reaches the level of non-smokers. That does suggest smoking is at least part of the picture.
Remember reading years ago that smoking and asbestos are not simply 'bad + bad' but bad X bad' in that they amplify each others harm effects in some way. Sorry, no source but if this does not ring a bell with someone I will search the next few days.
That could have been either HPV & cervical cancer, or EBV and nasopharyngeal cancer (and the IARC and NTP ignored the latter when they pretended that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen, which is very important to vapers as well). Also the latest SG report expanded the list of supposed smoking-related diseases to include multiple sclerosis, in which EBV is nearly always involved.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked