Smoking did this to me....

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: opethPA
No - not good enough of an answer.

Lulz..

If you made the choice to smoke a cigarette you have made the choice to be a smoker. Is a person that smokes 1 cigarette once in their life as heavy of or as at risk as someone who foolishly smokes a pack a day , of course not.
Smoking for 7 years and then stopping doesnt just erase the damage those 7 years did .

a reply to: opethPA

Are you able to answer a straight out question or do you really think shovelling # propaganda will deter me.

what do YOU mean when you call someone a smoker?

Wow, didn't intend to start a debate, by the way I'm at home, with strict instructions for wound care, pills etc. If all goes well I could possibly return to work in one week from today. Miracles do happen, I believe it now.

Thank you all for the kind words.

a reply to: ausername


Thank you for motivating me to quit.

a reply to: ausername

I wish you a speedy recovery. I smoked 40 a day from the age of 18 (started at 13). I chain-smoked when online easily going through another 20 over the course of an evening. At 48 I had the beginnings of COPD (respiratory function test). Every attempt to stop failed. I started vaping at 50 years old. Over the course of 2015/2016 I reduced the nicotine content. I have been nicotine-free for 6 month now. Its weird feeling when I take a vape now, which is curently 2-3 inhales a day. I never take it out with me. Now I exhale and think what the heck am I doing. There is no reward anymore. Now I am nicotine free I can say its definitely addiction over enjoyment. My last bottle of base liquid is nearly finished and I wont be replacing it.

I didn't bother with special flavours (fruit cocktails etc), I just stuck with American tobacco flavour. If I can do it buddy, anyone can.

a reply to: ausername

Keep fighting the good fight!

May your healing be fast and blessed.

a reply to: Morrad

I've been home only for a while now, and I must say I do have the urge, but the pain overrides that completely. Also I don't have anything to smoke, I and family made sure of that before I went in. No way I can go get any on the pain meds I'm on, I think I'm done smoking I have the scars to remind me forever, and while it could have been a lot worse being cancer and all, but wasn't I will have permanent nerve damage, at first they thought the whole left side of my face would be affected, (losing control of facial muscles) the ability to blink my left eye and the left side of my mouth... That didn't happen, but my left ear will NEVER have any feeling in it, and part of that side of my face, it's weird I touch that ear now and feel nothing, but it feels to my fingers like I'm touching someone else's ear. That too will remind me and keep me motivated.

I'm lucky, but it sucks. For me cold turkey is the only way. I quit drinking little over ten years ago, I think I can do this.

It was in many ways a blessing and a curse.

Thanks for the advice.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'm in a unique position working with Dr.'s and medical professionals every day. My way of thinking? I really really respect them all and I fully trust none of them.

The ones worth a damn have open minds, understand the old and growing medical discoveries, old teaching, and stand informed on the cutting edge of the tech, patient interactions of the new dawn.....

The rest are old-style pad-scribblers. "Here. Try this". "No! YOU try it first Doc... N let ME know how it works"!

a reply to: ausername

My very best wishes to you for a speedy recovery. I hope you will have an easy time quitting smoking. Remember, and this is a proven fact, no individual craving lasts for more than 30 seconds. At first you will get hit with a lot of cravings but each and every day, the cravings come less often.

Despite everything you have been told about smoking being more addictive than heroin, the truth is that after 3 days you have it licked.

As a matter of fact, quitting smoking cold turkey is so easy that you will be fooled into thinking you can do it again any time you want. this is your craving talking using different words. ignore it.

good luck

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I am so sick and tired of smoking being blamed for everything and people walking around with guilt for "causing" their disease.

Its cruel and ignorant to impose that burden on sick people.

Smokers don't "deserve" a disease anymore than anyone else.

smoking rates keep falling and disease incidence rates keep rising! Does that tell you something?

Would someone please tell me...which disease rate is falling after 66 years of anti-smoking?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The only answer I can attest to is Ive seen horrendous pictures of blackened, burnt and oozing blood from lungs recently deceased cadavers all we're smokers and the lungs we're what killed them from smoking and became cancerous.

Our Canadian members can help me out when I say some time ago (perhaps in the late 1990's) Canada required photos on every packs of cigarettes of diseased and cancerous lungs to make the smoker aware of the "this could be you" ideal. Don't know if it's still that way there.

I have dozen of medical books showing cadavers in all kinds of death conditions... and have been in the morgue with dozens over 20years seeing 1St hand the damage at the University of Michigan Medical Center.

Do a internet image search for damaged respiratory and cardiac cadavers who died from smoking, others who didnt die from smoking... but had lungs in a horrendous condition after autopsy.

Quite unnerving... so I'm not posting any of mine here.

Thanks.... MS

a reply to: ausername

Here is a thread i did a few days back concerning smoking .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: mysterioustranger

OH FOR PETES SAKE!!!!

You sir, are a liar of the first order. I have a medical background. The only time a lung from a cadaver is black is from BLACK LUNG DISEASE caused by coal mining.

www.smokershistory.com...

Kids get message from a pig lung. Southfield students learn tobacco's effects. By Gina Damron, Free Press Staff Writer. Detroit Free Press, Mar. 30, 2006. A bunch of little anti-smoker Tar Wars Hitler Youths from Southfield-Lathrup High School were the purveyors of lies and deceit to elementary school children. "'There's so much wrong, misleading information on TV' about smoking, said Southfield-Lathrup senior Desiree Tucker, 17. 'It's good to give them a positive and thoughtful message.'" Never mind that cigarette advertising was banned on TV long before this rotten little punk was born. And that this "positive and thoughtful message" consists of misrepresenting pig lungs which never breathed a whiff of smoke but were soaked in some unspecified brew for dramatic effect are what happens when people smoke; of lying that cigarette ads lie because they show people who are not suffering from lung cancer, when the vast majority of smokers do not get lung cancer; and harping about the costs of cigarettes, when the anti-smokers' lie that smoking is an economic burden to society to get cigarette taxes raised so high that they constitute most of the cost. They even got one ignorant twit to prattle ""I think that it should be illegal to sell tobacco," "It's affecting our environment and it's killing our people." The message that parents should be giving their children to counteract this slime and dishonesty is that anti-smokers are the filthy, bloodsucking scum of the planet earth. (Link died freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/CFP08/603300382/1110) Anti-smokers Dish Up Pig Lungs. By Louise Story. Hartford Courant, May 31, 2000. "Two sets of pigs' lungs were on display in the cafeteria Tuesday, at an American Lung Association anti-smoking table. On the right hung the healthy lungs, on the left the smoker's lungs... Johnston said the pigs' lungs, which are anatomically similar to those of humans, had been made to look like a smoker's lungs with injected carbon particles. Carbon is the chemical in tobacco products that stains smokers' lungs." Anti-smokers Dish Up Pig Lungs / Hartford Courant

This is ATS! We are not children to be fooled by the black lung boogyman and shame on you for even trying!

a reply to: hutch622

And again - why do non-smokers get PAD?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The risks of disease associated with each risk factor were not significantly different. The authors conclude that a unique risk factor profile for disease was not apparent among subjects who had never smoked, although never smokers were more likely to be women and to have higher levels of other risk factors.

When a smoker gets a disease, Doctor say its caused by smoking but when a non-smoker gets the same disease, well then, they just don't know

How about those fools just don't know and won't admit it.

Hey with smoking rates so historical low is the incidence of PAD decreasing.

Hey they did a study on that very subject

cwww.jvascsurg.org...(04)01141-3/abstract

Sixteen articles describing 17 studies were included in the analysis. Four of the studies were prospective, and 13 were cross-sectional. The prevalence of symptomatic PAD was increased 2.3-fold in current smokers. Even in former smokers the prevalence was substantially increased by a factor of 2.6. A clear dose-response relationship, with a strong increase in risk for PAD in heavy smokers was observed. In countries where approximately 30% of the population are smokers, 50% of PAD can be attributed to smoking.

Well would you just look at the results! You are at GREATER risk of PAD if you quit smoking. As good a reason to keep smoking as I ever heard.

You people keep swallowing the codswallop and don't ever under any circumstances engage your brain and ask the question:

If smoking causes X, then why do non-smokers get it!

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I think it says increases the risk on the packet . Still happens to non smokers , diabetes for instance .

a reply to: hutch622

and when it says "increased risk" then it is pretty well saying nothing is proven!

here is a question for you?

www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...

From 1998/99 to 2008/09, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among Canadians increased by 70%. The greatest relative increase in prevalence was seen in the 35 to 39 and 40 to 44 year age groups, where the proportion doubled. Likely, this increase in younger age groups is, in part, a consequence of increasing rates of overweight and obesity.

www.cdc.gov...

We now know that smoking causes type 2 diabetes. In fact, smokers are 30–40% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than nonsmokers. And people with diabetes who smoke are more likely than nonsmokers to have trouble with insulin dosing and with controlling their disease.3 The more cigarettes you smoke, the higher your risk for type 2 diabetes.3 No matter what type of diabetes you have, smoking makes your diabetes harder to control. If you have diabetes and you smoke, you are more likely to have serious health problems from diabetes. Smokers with diabetes have higher risks for serious complications, including:

Public Health and Antismoking very loudly and very long told us that "smoking is a high risk factor for diabetes" so, of course every diabetic was told that smoking CAUSED their disease. This is in the second link. In the first link, it loudly proclaims that diabetes has increased 70 % since 1998/1999 while it is also very well known that the incidence of smoking is at an historic low. Only now we are told that its NOT smoking that has the highest risk factor for diabetes - its obesity.

Now lets see....the states sued the tobacco companies for CAUSING diseases in smokers and increasing health care costs, I guess that what is next is suing the food companies for the VERY SAME DISEASES AND THE VERY SAME HEALTH CARES COSTS.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The CDC officially identified obesity as an epidemic over ten years ago and things have gotten worse since. The CDC provides us data showing that over third of our adult population is clinically obese, and the medical costs to the nation are over $147 billion annually, more than the costs due to smoking.

And by gosh - just who pays those settlements, Not the company, they just increase the costs of their profit. We, as consumers of food will pay the cost just like smokers paid the cost of the settlement. Only now, non-smokers will be paying just like smokers.

So here is the question: Smoking increase the risk factor for diabetes by 30 to 40 %, so why did diabetes increase when the rate of smoking decreased.

Do you think that its possible that statistics were used to establish risk factors and profit by suing the companies involved?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So here is another mystery. On ATS there is a thread from Kali announcing that she has lung cancer and smoking caused it. She quit smoking and begged others to quit smoking to avoid being in her position.

Now you would think that with smoking being at historically low rates and have been decreasing since the 1960s (60 years ago), that the one disease that would decrease with the decrease in smoking would be lung cancer. Its the disease that is 85 % CAUSED by smoking. Note this is not a "risk factor". Smoking CAUSES lung cancer, full stop, you are a fool if you question that statement. Right?

www.medscape.com...

DENVER — Lung cancer rates are increasing in people who have never smoked, according to two new studies presented here at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer. In fact, at one institution, the incidence of never-smokers diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) jumped from 13% to 28% during a 6-year period, Eric Lim, MD, from the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust in London, United Kingdom, and colleagues report in their study. And many of these patients initially presented with advanced-stage disease. The second study demonstrated that the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is increasing in the United States. This was observed in three facilities, most significantly for NSCLC. At one institution, for example, the rate of never-smokers climbed from 8.9% in 1990–1995 to 19.5% in 2011–2013.

Now they "claim" that lung cancer in never-smokers is a different disease than the lung cancer in smokers. Never-smokers get "non-small-cell lung cancer" and smokers get squamos cell carcinoma. They claim to be able to tell the difference between the two by reaction to therapy. But there is cross over with some never smokers getting squamous cell carcinoma and some lifelong smokers getting the non-small cell type.

There is actually no proof that ties a type of lung cancer to smokers. Its still all statistics. Which type occurs in smokers and which type tends to occur in never-smokers. But if we take smoking out of the picture all together, we are left with which type is most treatable.

The fact is that the over all rate of lung cancer has not substantially declined but it would appear that the incidence of lung cancer has shifted to never-smokers from smokers.

adenocarcinoma.imedpub.com... s-cell-carcino.php?aid=11341

One of the weakest links in the Surgeon General’s argument [1] is that the shift from SqCC to AdC “is confined to smokers.” Though they claimed that “neither the overall risk of lung cancer nor the risk of adenocarcinoma has changed over time among never smokers”, there has in fact been a clear change in never smokers. That there has been such a change is supported by an analysis [17] in which absolute lung cancer mortality rates by smoking habit and histological type were estimated indirectly based on relative risk estimates from studies published in the 20th century, coupled with WHO mortality data for the same country and period. It is also supported by results reported by Samet et al. [18], who noted that in men the rate of AdC was increasing over time and the rate of SqCC was decreasing, regardless of smoking habits. That a change in never smokers has occurred has recently been demonstrated even more clearly in a study published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology [15]. That study investigated how the proportion of AdC varied in never smokers by time, sex and region, based on published evidence from epidemiological studies on the distribution of lung cancer types. Data were analysed from 219 sex- and period- specific blocks of data drawn from 157 publications. It was clear that there was a time-related increase in the proportion of AdC which was evident in both sexes, all regions, and regardless of the denominator used (AdC and SqCC combined, the four main histological types combined, or all lung cancer cases). Compared to the period 1950-69, the ratio of AdC to SqCC was higher by a factor 1.67 in 1970-79, 1.97 in 1980-89, 2.35 in 1990-99 and 3.93 in 2000 onwards. The authors present arguments that the time trends could not be explained by limitations in the literature searches, changes in exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, or the inclusion of misclassified current or former smokers among the never smokers.

Now if you take away the CAUSE of 85% of the incidence in a disease, and the incidence of the disease does NOT decrease, there is only one possible logical explanation: Smoking never CAUSED lung cancer in the first place. It was all a trick of statistics and lies.

Poor Kali is suffering emotionally by thinking she CAUSED her disease. She did not. And it is cruel to inflict that emotional pain on her in the name of a "good cause"

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
what do YOU mean when you call someone a smoker?

Someone who smokes and is currently smoking cigarettes.

smoker
ˈsməʊkə'
noun
1. a person who smokes tobacco regularly.

That's my answer. Straight forward.

a reply to: noonebutme

That is your answer

but to researcher when they use the word "smoker", they mean everyone who has ever smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.

Whether a person ever smoked more than a 100 cigarettes in a lifetime, a survey is used that asks a 70 year old to remember if he stole 100 cigarettes from his parents when he was 12.

The classification of being a smoker stays with you for your entire life, even if it has been 50 years since you smoked a cigarette.

Considering how many people at least try smoking in their lifetimes, it is quite probable that 80 % of the population are classed as smokers and it would not be very surprising at all, if 80 % of the disease occurs in 80 % of the population.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It defies belief how you are always making excuses for smoking. ausername gave his testimony. I, for one, am very glad he is smart enough to call out his bad habit and give it up.

Speedy recovery AUN, Glad you took the bull by the horns here and did something about it.