- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If she smokes, she pokes...lung cancer & HPV: were we wrong about tobacco?
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:01 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:01 am
So I am an EX-Smoker, but I always hated the propaganda against it, even still.
You see, while the rate of smoking has been cut in half, lung cancer rates in women have double.
https://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures
we had 50 years of 40% of the population smoking
I was looking at the propaganda about the health effects of quitting....and I saw this
wait WTF, cervical and throat? They have shown that those are HPV related!!
1st: we've dropped to the 20%'s for more than 10 years...so where's the "50%" drop in lung cancer?
2nd: HPV is causing every one of those other Cancers...but they aren't attributing Lung Cancer?
ex:
Is it possible that Smoking, while not the healthiest of activities, has been UNFAIRLY CRUCIFIED for just being a common practice of Sexually promiscuous people?(smokes=pokes)
Please those with a medical background, think about this for a second...I found this garbage that perplexed me...from 2011.
LINK
really, is this anti-smoking bullshite the same as Global Warming?
You see, while the rate of smoking has been cut in half, lung cancer rates in women have double.
quote:
The rate of new lung cancer cases (incidence) over the past 36 years has dropped for men (24% decrease), while it has risen for women (100% increase).
https://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures
we had 50 years of 40% of the population smoking
I was looking at the propaganda about the health effects of quitting....and I saw this
quote:
5 years after quitting
Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and bladder are cut in half. Cervical cancer risk falls to that of a non-smoker. Stroke risk can fall to that of a non-smoker after 2-5 years.
10 years after quitting
The risk of dying from lung cancer is about half that of a person who is still smoking. The risk of cancer of the larynx (voice box) and pancreas decreases.
wait WTF, cervical and throat? They have shown that those are HPV related!!
1st: we've dropped to the 20%'s for more than 10 years...so where's the "50%" drop in lung cancer?
2nd: HPV is causing every one of those other Cancers...but they aren't attributing Lung Cancer?
ex:
quote:
In fact, researchers say that virtually all cervical cancers -- more than 99% -- are caused by these high-risk HPV viruses
quote:
Although oropharyngeal cancer is relatively uncommon, the rate of HPV-linked cases has been rising -- particularly among white adults younger than 55. The reasons aren't clear, but experts suspect that changes in oral sex practices have a lot to do with it. "We're seeing this in younger, healthy people who don't smoke," said Dr. Terry Day, senior researcher on the new study and a specialist in head and neck cancers at the Medical University of South Carolina, in Charleston.
So his team looked at records for 88 patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer at their center between 2008 and 2013. Most -- 71 -- had HPV-positive cancer
Is it possible that Smoking, while not the healthiest of activities, has been UNFAIRLY CRUCIFIED for just being a common practice of Sexually promiscuous people?(smokes=pokes)
Please those with a medical background, think about this for a second...I found this garbage that perplexed me...from 2011.
quote:
ORLANDO, Fla. — Researchers with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have found that people with lung cancer were significantly more likely to have several high-risk forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) antibodies compared to those who did not have lung cancer.
LINK
really, is this anti-smoking bullshite the same as Global Warming?
11
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:07 am to Iona Fan Man
No smoking is pretty much the worst thing you can do for your health.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:10 am to AngryBeavers
quote:
No smoking is pretty much the worst thing you can do for your health.
that has been the company line for a while now
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:11 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:
If she smokes, she doesn't age well, her breath stinks, her car stinks, her clothes stink, and she pokes
Fixed it for you (FIFY)
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:12 am to Iona Fan Man
Then by all means start lighting up and let us know how it works out for you down the road.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:13 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:
is this anti-smoking bullshite the same as Global Warming?
Not really. Literally everything that goes wrong on Earth gets blamed on "Climate Change". The cancer numbers you just cited will eventually be blamed on "Climate Change" as well.
Smoking cigarettes has a long way to go in order to reach the level of fear-mongering "Climate Change" has achieved.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 1:14 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:21 am to stuntman
quote:
Smoking cigarettes has a long way to go in order to reach the level of fear-mongering "Climate Change" has achieved.
second hand smoke cancer couldn't just be because you are sleeping with(oral) the HPV infected person?
Just one study followed by peer review and a marketing onslaught
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:23 am to Iona Fan Man
1980 =/= 2014.
A lot has changed and the world is complex. There could be other variables at play here. Not everything can be reduced down to a chart.
(or it all could be BS. I dunno.)
A lot has changed and the world is complex. There could be other variables at play here. Not everything can be reduced down to a chart.
(or it all could be BS. I dunno.)
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:27 am to stuntman
quote:
Smoking cigarettes has a long way to go in order to reach the level of fear-mongering "Climate Change" has achieved.
Are you crazy?
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:33 am to lsu480
Posted on 5/31/14 at 1:47 am to stuntman
quote:
Not at all. No way in hell smoking can compare w/ this list; WE ALL GONNA DIE!!
I am talking about real people. Who do you actually know that is more worried about a loved one dying from climate change than smoking, assuming their loved one smokes.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 2:37 am to lsu480
Oh, I see what you mean now. I was just replying to the OP about the propaganda involved.
No doubt smoking is a threat to a person's health...WAAAY more of a threat than "Climate Change", but there's no comparison when it comes to the level of scare tactics between the two.
No doubt smoking is a threat to a person's health...WAAAY more of a threat than "Climate Change", but there's no comparison when it comes to the level of scare tactics between the two.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 2:47 am to Iona Fan Man
That is probably because women years ago “ smoked sociably ” at parties and such, because it was fashionable, now they smoke because the have a habit, and like men, to satisfy their cravings.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 4:12 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:KO, I'm very much a live and let live guy. e.g., the "second-hand smoke thing in most instances is garbage.
that has been the company line for a while now
However smoking, and certainly >1/2ppd smoking, has many ramifications beyond Cancer. It is a HUGE player in cardiovascular disease (probably its most dangerous health impact). It increases likelihood of pathologies such as colon polyps, etc. Nothing whatsoever to do with the "company line". It's what I've seen.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 4:35 am to Iona Fan Man
I don't think a person needs a scientific study to know that inhaling smoke with formaldehyde, tar, nicotine, etc. as opposed to inhaling clean air is bad for you. Really?
Posted on 5/31/14 at 5:17 am to stuntman
My dad has been smoking since he was in the service in WW2. Unfiltered cigs until about 1970 then he switched to filtered lights. He's in his 90's and I expect the smoking to kill him any year now.
Being real - his breathing sucks, but he's not toting around an air bottle. His knees and hips bother him more than his lungs.
Being real - his breathing sucks, but he's not toting around an air bottle. His knees and hips bother him more than his lungs.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 6:44 am to mauser
The epidemiology of lung cancer is a lot more complicated than your graph shows. For example, there are several major different cell types which behave differently and have different risk factors.
Squamous cell carcinoma is definitely very strongly associated with smoking. It is almost always in a smoker. It used to be the most prevalent type of lung cancer, but has significantly decreased with decreased smoking in the population.
Small cell carcinoma is a terrible type with a poor prognosis, is less common, and has a strong association with smoking.
Adenocarcinoma has less of an association with smoking and is now nearly the most common type, and has increased in incidence. Why this is the case isn't really clear as far as I know. Both smokers and non smokers get this type.
Smoking has been shown over and over to increase your risk of a multitude of other cancers, as well as significantly increase your risk of heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease. Not to mention other benign but disabling lung diseases.
I once had a patient whose leg had terrible vascular disease and was on the border of needing an amputation. Meds hadn't been successful, in part because he refuses to quit smoking. I told him he could keep smoking and get his leg cut off, or stop smoking an keep his leg. He thought about it for a second or two before saying he would rather smoke and lose a leg.
Squamous cell carcinoma is definitely very strongly associated with smoking. It is almost always in a smoker. It used to be the most prevalent type of lung cancer, but has significantly decreased with decreased smoking in the population.
Small cell carcinoma is a terrible type with a poor prognosis, is less common, and has a strong association with smoking.
Adenocarcinoma has less of an association with smoking and is now nearly the most common type, and has increased in incidence. Why this is the case isn't really clear as far as I know. Both smokers and non smokers get this type.
Smoking has been shown over and over to increase your risk of a multitude of other cancers, as well as significantly increase your risk of heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease. Not to mention other benign but disabling lung diseases.
I once had a patient whose leg had terrible vascular disease and was on the border of needing an amputation. Meds hadn't been successful, in part because he refuses to quit smoking. I told him he could keep smoking and get his leg cut off, or stop smoking an keep his leg. He thought about it for a second or two before saying he would rather smoke and lose a leg.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 6:46 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 6:46 am to Revelator
quote:
I don't think a person needs a scientific study to know that inhaling smoke with formaldehyde, tar, nicotine, etc. as opposed to inhaling clean air is bad for you.
But in case you do, there are plenty out there.
Posted on 5/31/14 at 7:09 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:
Is it possible that Smoking, while not the healthiest of activities, has been UNFAIRLY CRUCIFIED for just being a common practice of Sexually promiscuous people?(smokes=pokes)
We need more data - is HPV at a higher prevalence? Or are we just detecting it now? Because if we were having lots of cancer before with smoking but no HPV, then smoking was still likely the culprit (rates have dropped in men, right?) However, I've always suspected that something else is going on with cancer - a combination of genetics and environmental triggers. If you have neither you never get the cancer - if you have both you're likely to get it - if you have either -
But, smoking is bad well beyond cancer - that's just the risk they pushed to scare people to stop. Smoking = copd if you do it long enough. Smoking = heart disease if you do it long enough.
Of course, these conditions can arise independently of smoking, but it shortens life, period.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 7:11 am
Posted on 5/31/14 at 10:44 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
is HPV at a higher prevalence?
is promiscuity at a higher prevalence?
quote:
smoking was still likely the culprit (rates have dropped in men, right?)
this has perplexed me to explain. My bias says, HIV scare led to more condom use, and being that girls are more promiscuous, guys less likely to have been with a prostitute. So guys less likely to get it, but girls more likely.
quote:
If you have neither you never get the cancer - if you have both you're likely to get it - if you have either -
I'm not saying smoking is good for you or that it's not bad for you.....I am just wondering if Smoking related health issues are unfairly inflated.
Smoking is a lower socioeconomic trait which shares poor diet, hygiene, decision making abilities, stress, healthcare.....and MORAL fiber.
Will a smoker go jogging,or will he go to the bar?
Will a smoker eat Kale and Blueberry Salad, or grab a super sized Big-Mac value meal?
Is it really the cigarettes? Seems that there are many, almost purposefully overlooked, variables that are dismissed on the way to demonizing Cigs.
This post was edited on 5/31/14 at 10:46 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News