They Lied! Smoking does not cause oral-pharangeal cancers!

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Limbo

 

Limbo

Lets be clear here. I am saying NOTHING! The medical community has announced that instead of incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer DECREASING with the decrease in the male smoking rate since the peak in the 1960s, the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is INCREASING.
Tired of Control Freaks

Let's definitely be clear. This destroys your entire argument. Smoking has decreased, and so has OP cancer overall. If oral sex is a cause (which it is) then you would see fewer OP cases due to smoking, and more OP causes due to oral sex, and overall those two shifts should somewhat even out causing the overall change of OP not to change much. That is exactly what we see.

In recent years, the overall rate of new cases of this disease has been stable in men and dropping slightly in women. However, there has been a recent rise in cases of oropharyngeal cancer linked to infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) in white men and women .
www.cancer.org...

If it was always caused by HPV as you suggest we would see a large surge of OP cancer, we don't. Unless you are suggesting women are doing much less oral sex now than they did before.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

BTW - so people who receive a lung transplant from a smoker are at greater risk of death???? implying that it is the smoker's lungs that are the CAUSE of this death?

Let us remember here that transplant recipiants ran through one set of lungs for a reason and that transplant recipiants also take a truckload of drugs to suppress the immune system.

Is it possible that whether or not the donor lungs come from a smoker or not - lung transplant recipiants are not all that likely to live a normal life span
Tired of Control Freaks

No, as I keep telling you, you really need to learn this stuff before you post.

They look at patients who receive a smoker's lung, and patients that receive a non-smoker's lung. The only difference is the lung. Both sets of patients are transplant patients. The ones getting lungs from smokers have more complications and higher risk of death. The fact both sets have problems does not have anything to do with one set has MORE problems. This is the same mistake you make over and over, and you can't really be this stupid to not have learned. Just because OP cancer (or other cancers) have multiple causes does not make smoking not a cause.

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView

 

My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

Even if the roles were reversed it's meaningless. A sample size of 1 or 2 is meaningless. Meaning is gained when you look at thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, and look for discernible differences.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView

 

My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

Even if the roles were reversed it's meaningless. A sample size of 1 or 2 is meaningless. Meaning is gained when you look at thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, and look for discernible differences.

Any sample size becomes meaningless to the point of charade, when not all factors are looked at...not all factors ARE being looked at.

Å99

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I have nothing to do with anything pro or anti smoking. I don't give smoking or not smoking any thought at all, other than knowing facts for the sake of knowledge.

And to those talking about black lungs, that is from coal inhalation, and while smoking will increase the severity of black lung disease, it will not turn your lungs black.

It WILL give you lung cancer though, as well as COPD, and emphysema.

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView

 

My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

Even if the roles were reversed it's meaningless. A sample size of 1 or 2 is meaningless. Meaning is gained when you look at thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, and look for discernible differences.

Any sample size becomes meaningless to the point of charade, when not all factors are looked at...not all factors ARE being looked at.

Å99

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView

 

My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.

Even if the roles were reversed it's meaningless. A sample size of 1 or 2 is meaningless. Meaning is gained when you look at thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, and look for discernible differences.

Any sample size becomes meaningless to the point of charade, when not all factors are looked at...not all factors ARE being looked at.

Å99

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Peter Vlar

Rationalization works two ways.

Its easier for you to believe that oral sex and kissing has been in fashion only in the 30 years, then that smoking DOES NOT cause oral-pharangeal cancer?

Despite the fact that the surgeon general never said that smoking CAUSED oral-pharangeal cancer, only that the wieght of the evidence is sufficient to infer the cause?

Tired of Control Freaks

Are you saying only smokers perform oral sex?

The average risk among persons who currently smoke and have smoked only cigarettes is approximately 10-fold higher in men and 5-fold greater in women compared with lifetime nonsmokers.

Wrong, it explicitly states smoking IS the cause, why do you lie and say they did not say smoking caused OP cancer?

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between smoking and cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx

in·fer/ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, in·ferred, in·fer·ring.
verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:

They came to a conclusion based on facts. Fact: Smoking causes OP cancer as supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

If you are suggesting the smoking-cancer link research is meaningless due to faulty controls please do explain the problems with the research.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

If you are suggesting the smoking-cancer link research is meaningless due to faulty controls please do explain the problems with the research.

Clearly, a closed cubicle, filled with cigarette smoke is not good for you...deadly at level that remove oxygen required for proper function of the lungs...a closed cubicle full of water, will do the same.
The reality IS, that cigarette smoke is not the only factor contributing to lung cancer...RE:OP...studies do not, and cannot (when hardly or little, or not included/understood) show a definitive 'cause'...the studies do not support this...i.e. enter 'passive smoking' with the exclusion of a great number of other conteibuting factors...cos you know that poor individuals who succumb to lung cancer (and who are not exposed to 'passive smoking') do indeed get lung cancer...why is this so?

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


Again. The same stupid logic the OP uses. Just because there are other causes of cancer does not mean cigarette smoke is not one.

People get poisoned and die every day without ever being bitten by a snake. According to your logic snake venom is not poisonous.

Take 500,000 who all go through the exact same daily routines. Then break them into two groups. One group that smokes, and one that doesn't

10% of all non smokers get disease A.
40% of all smokers get disease A.

That means 80% of all cases of disease A in the group that smokes is linked to smoking. There is no way to determine what is the cause in any ONE SINGLE case, but 8 in every 10 of them is due to smoking.

Does that make sense to you now?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

If you are suggesting the smoking-cancer link research is meaningless due to faulty controls please do explain the problems with the research.

If the suggestion is that passive smoking is the only contributing factor in the non-smokers acquiring lung cancer...the research is flawed...clearly, it is not the only factor...and 'studies' have not replicated the real life conditions that we all are subjected to, isolated them and attributed any clear and unequivical 'cause'...yes smoking is not Good for you...but neither is sitting in front of a modern television set, standing in front of a microwave oven while it is on, filling your diesel vehicle with fumes that enter the lungs without discrimination...etc etc etc...studies do not replicate this situation at all...the OP is another factor, added to the fact that smoking contributes...

Å99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

Again. The same stupid logic the OP uses. Just because there are other causes of cancer does not mean cigarette smoke is not one.

People get poisoned and die every day without ever being bitten by a snake. According to your logic snake venom is not poisonous.

Take 500,000 who all go through the exact same daily routines. Then break them into two groups. One group that smokes, and one that doesn't

10% of all non smokers get disease A.
40% of all smokers get disease A.

That means 80% of all cases of disease A in the group that smokes is linked to smoking. There is no way to determine what is the cause in any ONE SINGLE case, but 8 in every 10 of them is due to smoking.

Does that make sense to you now?

'Stupid logic'...that's very funny...example provided (with reverse logic applied is the definition of stupidity)...

...'due to smoking'...and what else?

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

If you are suggesting the smoking-cancer link research is meaningless due to faulty controls please do explain the problems with the research.

If the suggestion is that passive smoking is the only contributing factor in the non-smokers acquiring lung cancer...the research is flawed...clearly, it is not the only factor...and 'studies' have not replicated the real life conditions that we all are subjected to, isolated them and attributed any clear and unequivical 'cause'...yes smoking is not Good for you...but neither is sitting in front of a modern television set, standing in front of a microwave oven while it is on, filling your diesel vehicle with fumes that enter the lungs without discrimination...etc etc etc...studies do not replicate this situation at all...the OP is another factor, added to the fact that smoking contributes...

Å99

You're right. That would be flawed. Good thing NO STUDY has ever, ever, ever said that. The very fact it is a "contributing factor" by necessity means it's not the only factor.

The only flawed thinking is yours, that because passive smoking is not the ONLY cause, then it can not be at all responsible. There is zero logic behind your position.

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

Again. The same stupid logic the OP uses. Just because there are other causes of cancer does not mean cigarette smoke is not one.

People get poisoned and die every day without ever being bitten by a snake. According to your logic snake venom is not poisonous.

Take 500,000 who all go through the exact same daily routines. Then break them into two groups. One group that smokes, and one that doesn't

10% of all non smokers get disease A.
40% of all smokers get disease A.

That means 80% of all cases of disease A in the group that smokes is linked to smoking. There is no way to determine what is the cause in any ONE SINGLE case, but 8 in every 10 of them is due to smoking.

Does that make sense to you now?

'Stupid logic'...that's very funny...example provided (with reverse logic applied is the definition of stupidity)...

...'due to smoking'...and what else?

Å99

The "what else" is affecting BOTH smokers and non smokers (which is why non smokers have a 10% chance to develop disease A). Seriously this is not difficult to comprehend. The "what else" causes 20% of all cases of disease A in my example. The fact there is a "what else" does not excuse smoking. How can you possibly think it does? Look at my example and you give me a different explanation for the difference in prevalence of disease A in the two groups.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

What does the fact a large sample size can be meaningless when confounding variables are not accounted for have to do with the fact a sample size of 2 is always meaningless? Nothing? Thought so.

You just answered your own question.

Å99

If you are suggesting the smoking-cancer link research is meaningless due to faulty controls please do explain the problems with the research.

If the suggestion is that passive smoking is the only contributing factor in the non-smokers acquiring lung cancer...the research is flawed...clearly, it is not the only factor...and 'studies' have not replicated the real life conditions that we all are subjected to, isolated them and attributed any clear and unequivical 'cause'...yes smoking is not Good for you...but neither is sitting in front of a modern television set, standing in front of a microwave oven while it is on, filling your diesel vehicle with fumes that enter the lungs without discrimination...etc etc etc...studies do not replicate this situation at all...the OP is another factor, added to the fact that smoking contributes...

Å99

You're right. That would be flawed. Good thing NO STUDY has ever, ever, ever said that. The very fact it is a "contributing factor" by necessity means it's not the only factor.

The only flawed thinking is yours, that because passive smoking is not the ONLY cause, then it can not be at all responsible. There is zero logic behind your position.

But the implication is that it is the major cause...that is stupidity exemplified under the cover of science...

Å99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

Again. The same stupid logic the OP uses. Just because there are other causes of cancer does not mean cigarette smoke is not one.

People get poisoned and die every day without ever being bitten by a snake. According to your logic snake venom is not poisonous.

Take 500,000 who all go through the exact same daily routines. Then break them into two groups. One group that smokes, and one that doesn't

10% of all non smokers get disease A.
40% of all smokers get disease A.

That means 80% of all cases of disease A in the group that smokes is linked to smoking. There is no way to determine what is the cause in any ONE SINGLE case, but 8 in every 10 of them is due to smoking.

Does that make sense to you now?

'Stupid logic'...that's very funny...example provided (with reverse logic applied is the definition of stupidity)...

...'due to smoking'...and what else?

Å99

The "what else" is affecting BOTH smokers and non smokers (which is why non smokers have a 10% chance to develop disease A). Seriously this is not difficult to comprehend. The "what else" causes 20% of all cases of disease A in my example. The fact there is a "what else" does not excuse smoking. How can you possibly think it does? Look at my example and you give me a different explanation for the difference in prevalence of disease A in the two groups.

Correct...and the what else, is of course not part of current or past research, and therefore cannot be considered, as it is not on any radar - see OP...the earth was once thought to be flat...clearly stupidity...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

This means 30% of all lung cancer is caused by factors other than smoking, 70% is linked to smoking

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

Do these same studies include the totality of thier exposure to cancer-causing environments?

Å99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by akushla99

 

No, it's not the implication, it's the evidence. When smokers and non-smokers are in the same environment, exposed to all the same secondary factors, 15% of all lung cancers are developed by "never smokers" and 85% are developed by smokers. The ONLY difference in their lives is exposure to smoke. So what do you propose is the major cause?

Do these same studies include the totality of thier exposure to cancer-causing environments?

Å99

Yes. They do. why do you think non smokers still get lung cancer? 30% of all lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking.