U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2015, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Rockport Texas from El Paso
2,601 posts, read 7,314,250 times
Reputation: 1569

Advertisements

Ken S I hope you read the responses and actually learned something. Interpreting statistics is way over your head and we can all hope we didn't waste our time correcting you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2015, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,891 posts, read 36,436,044 times
Reputation: 21336
A few years ago, someone asked the question, "Why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer, if smoking causes lung cancer?" And a study was born.

What the study discovered (which proved useful in forwarding research in other types of cancer, apparently) was that the 20% who got cancer have a gene that the 80% don't. That gene not only affects their reaction to nicotine, making them more likely to get addicted to it than those without the gene, but they are more likely to get lung cancer even if they never smoke and are never exposed to second hand smoke.

Interestingly enough, that study got a little coverage and then very quietly fell out of the news. Wonder why that might be?

This says nothing about any other illnesses that may or may not be caused by smoking, but it does say that smoking in and of itself does not cause it. Which explains my mother-in-law, a chain smoker from before she got out of bed in the morning to just before she went to bed at night, for 50 years that we know of, who had a breast cancer operation in her 70's. The doctors told her that they were sure, given her history of smoking, that they would find something wrong with her lungs and that they might need to operate on them while they were in there, so she signed the release forms. When she woke up, her doctor sheepishly told her that she had the pinkest, prettiest lungs he'd ever seen. Apparently she didn't have the gene.

We really want to believe that we know everything about what causes these bad diseases; it gives us a feeling of control. But the fact is, we really know diddly-squat. And the more we do learn, the more we find that out.

I did see the article above and others on the study (by Johns Hopkins, no less) and thought, "Oh, it's going to hit the fan now! There's a lot of people out there that have a LOT invested in justifying their need to control smokers, and they are NOT going to like this and will do their dead level best to deny it!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
20,895 posts, read 22,484,943 times
Reputation: 32711
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
A few years ago, someone asked the question, "Why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer, if smoking causes lung cancer?" And a study was born.

What the study discovered (which proved useful in forwarding research in other types of cancer, apparently) was that the 20% who got cancer have a gene that the 80% don't. That gene not only affects their reaction to nicotine, making them more likely to get addicted to it than those without the gene, but they are more likely to get lung cancer even if they never smoke and are never exposed to second hand smoke.

Interestingly enough, that study got a little coverage and then very quietly fell out of the news. Wonder why that might be?

This says nothing about any other illnesses that may or may not be caused by smoking, but it does say that smoking in and of itself does not cause it. Which explains my mother-in-law, a chain smoker from before she got out of bed in the morning to just before she went to bed at night, for 50 years that we know of, who had a breast cancer operation in her 70's. The doctors told her that they were sure, given her history of smoking, that they would find something wrong with her lungs and that they might need to operate on them while they were in there, so she signed the release forms. When she woke up, her doctor sheepishly told her that she had the pinkest, prettiest lungs he'd ever seen. Apparently she didn't have the gene.

We really want to believe that we know everything about what causes these bad diseases; it gives us a feeling of control. But the fact is, we really know diddly-squat. And the more we do learn, the more we find that out.

I did see the article above and others on the study (by Johns Hopkins, no less) and thought, "Oh, it's going to hit the fan now! There's a lot of people out there that have a LOT invested in justifying their need to control smokers, and they are NOT going to like this and will do their dead level best to deny it!"
Great post! I also have to argue about a condition I don't have everytime I see a new doctor who is certain I have it because I have some symptoms. The doctor will admit I don't only after giving me an MRI which confirms it isn't present. I will no longer allow them to give me the MRI's. They just have to take my word for it. I've had so many x-rays and CT scans I'm probably radioactive.

Regarding the lung Cancer and your MIL, I once read it isn't the tobacco per se but the ingredients that are put into the cigarettes that cause the Cancer. So maybe the moral of the story is to roll your own if you want to smoke.

In any case, I agree about the diddly-squat. Go to three different specialists, get three different opinions. Then get three different treatments and hope one of them will work. The only real truth is we're all gonna die and it's going to be of one cause or another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,467 posts, read 15,072,372 times
Reputation: 11932
I don't think anyone ever really said you shouldn't smoke because you'd be more likely to get breast cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 06:42 PM
 
4,250 posts, read 3,321,957 times
Reputation: 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
A few years ago, someone asked the question, "Why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer, if smoking causes lung cancer?" And a study was born.

What the study discovered (which proved useful in forwarding research in other types of cancer, apparently) was that the 20% who got cancer have a gene that the 80% don't. That gene not only affects their reaction to nicotine, making them more likely to get addicted to it than those without the gene, but they are more likely to get lung cancer even if they never smoke and are never exposed to second hand smoke.

Interestingly enough, that study got a little coverage and then very quietly fell out of the news. Wonder why that might be?

This says nothing about any other illnesses that may or may not be caused by smoking, but it does say that smoking in and of itself does not cause it. Which explains my mother-in-law, a chain smoker from before she got out of bed in the morning to just before she went to bed at night, for 50 years that we know of, who had a breast cancer operation in her 70's. The doctors told her that they were sure, given her history of smoking, that they would find something wrong with her lungs and that they might need to operate on them while they were in there, so she signed the release forms. When she woke up, her doctor sheepishly told her that she had the pinkest, prettiest lungs he'd ever seen. Apparently she didn't have the gene.

We really want to believe that we know everything about what causes these bad diseases; it gives us a feeling of control. But the fact is, we really know diddly-squat. And the more we do learn, the more we find that out.

I did see the article above and others on the study (by Johns Hopkins, no less) and thought, "Oh, it's going to hit the fan now! There's a lot of people out there that have a LOT invested in justifying their need to control smokers, and they are NOT going to like this and will do their dead level best to deny it!"
The study of genes aside, to say that your MIL had the "pinkest,prettiest lungs" that the doctor has ever seen is just absolutely ridiculous. Common sense dictates that if you smoked like a chimney for 50 years, your lungs will look like a chimney that has been left overused and uncleaned for 50 years. Come on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,467 posts, read 15,072,372 times
Reputation: 11932
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
A few years ago, someone asked the question, "Why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer, if smoking causes lung cancer?" And a study was born.

What the study discovered (which proved useful in forwarding research in other types of cancer, apparently) was that the 20% who got cancer have a gene that the 80% don't. That gene not only affects their reaction to nicotine, making them more likely to get addicted to it than those without the gene, but they are more likely to get lung cancer even if they never smoke and are never exposed to second hand smoke.

Interestingly enough, that study got a little coverage and then very quietly fell out of the news. Wonder why that might be?

This says nothing about any other illnesses that may or may not be caused by smoking, but it does say that smoking in and of itself does not cause it. Which explains my mother-in-law, a chain smoker from before she got out of bed in the morning to just before she went to bed at night, for 50 years that we know of, who had a breast cancer operation in her 70's. The doctors told her that they were sure, given her history of smoking, that they would find something wrong with her lungs and that they might need to operate on them while they were in there, so she signed the release forms. When she woke up, her doctor sheepishly told her that she had the pinkest, prettiest lungs he'd ever seen. Apparently she didn't have the gene.

We really want to believe that we know everything about what causes these bad diseases; it gives us a feeling of control. But the fact is, we really know diddly-squat. And the more we do learn, the more we find that out.

I did see the article above and others on the study (by Johns Hopkins, no less) and thought, "Oh, it's going to hit the fan now! There's a lot of people out there that have a LOT invested in justifying their need to control smokers, and they are NOT going to like this and will do their dead level best to deny it!"
No, that's not what the study found. The study found smokers with the BRCA2 gene were twice as likely to develop lung cancer. With smokers having somewhere between a 20 and 100:1 better chance of getting lung cancer than non-smokers it didn't get much attention because it's not that big a deal. Take the lower end 20 times as likely. Get your genetic testing done and find out you don't have BRCA2. Great. You're slightly better off than someone who does. It's not just lung cancer though, BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 are correlated with all sorts of cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:28 PM
 
Location: So Ca
13,947 posts, read 13,588,503 times
Reputation: 11858
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
A few years ago, someone asked the question, "Why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer, if smoking causes lung cancer?" And a study was born. What the study discovered was that the 20% who got cancer have a gene that the 80% don't...Interestingly enough, that study got a little coverage and then very quietly fell out of the news. Wonder why that might be?
Please post a link to this study. There is not a lone gene that causes lung cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Scott County, Tennessee/by way of Detroit
3,330 posts, read 1,981,629 times
Reputation: 10245
And then there is the Carter family whose EVERY MEMBER had pancreatic cancer and died from it,,( except Jimmy) and Miss Lillian who had pancreatic AND breast cancer....that is no coincidence....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,891 posts, read 36,436,044 times
Reputation: 21336
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
The study of genes aside, to say that your MIL had the "pinkest,prettiest lungs" that the doctor has ever seen is just absolutely ridiculous. Common sense dictates that if you smoked like a chimney for 50 years, your lungs will look like a chimney that has been left overused and uncleaned for 50 years. Come on!
I didn't say that, the doctor who was inside her chest said that. Argue with him, if it will make you feel any better. I'm simply quoting him; I didn't see her lungs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,891 posts, read 36,436,044 times
Reputation: 21336
My sister had breast cancer, in spite of doing absolutely everything "right" for 50 years (low fat diet, exercise - she was a competitive square dancer into her 70's, when she stopped because her partner, her husband, had knee surgery - he's five years older than she is). She survived (and was square dancing two weeks after a double mastectomy - ouch!).

My best friend for 35 years also did everything "right" (vegetarian, lots of exercise, same weight as she weighed in high school, you name it), and died of ovarian cancer in her fifties. At the time of her death she was part of a study on familiar cancer in Jewish families - every single member of her family, including a two-year-old niece, died of a different form of cancer - and her brother, father of that niece, who also died of cancer, was a half-brother as her mother (who also died of cancer) was the second wife.

A third friend who did everything "right" (again, vegetarian, lots of exercise, did what you're "supposed to do") died of breast cancer in her fifties.

All very careful about diet, taking care of themselves, doing everything we're told is supposed to keep us from getting cancer and not doing any of the things that we're told (by some - not doctors or scientists who KNOW they don't know) are for sure going to make us get cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top