English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you know that there has never been one recorded proven case of someone dying of cancer caused by smoking? Not one, would you believe. Please tell me that the Launcet is wrong?

2007-08-14 02:17:24 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health Diseases & Conditions Cancer

32 answers

Well 'proof' is quite difficult to come by. How would you prove that one single factor in on person's lifestyle was the difinitive cause of anything? There are usually many factors, and smoking may well be one of them, but to record a case as 'cancer caused by smoking' we'd have to understand the disease better than we do now.

What can be proved is more to do with statistics. There is a *high correlation* between smoking and premature death due to lung disease or certain cancers, ie. that if you smoke you are more likely to get these diseases, and that you can cut your *risk* of these diseases by not smoking.

2007-08-14 02:33:26 · answer #1 · answered by kangaruth 3 · 1 0

Firstly, no Scientist has said that smoking CAUSES cancer, rather, it is a contributing factor and a heavy one at that. Smoking from a biological point of view is a contributing factor due to the inhaled carcinogens. These are chemicals that can mutate strains of your DNA leading to tumor growth or lun cancer. Yes many people smoke and don't develop cancer yet all you have to do is look at the CDC (center for Disease Controls) yearly report to find that of lung cancer deaths, over 80% had been regular to heavy smokers. And im sorry but did you say smokers live longer than non smokers on average? That is absolutely ridiculous. Please show me the source you got this information from. Before you call me ignorant like you did some of the others notice these facts and figures. 80% of heavy smokers die before 70 years old. 80%of those deaths are caused by a form of respiratory illness. Non smokers with no underlying health conditions on average live to 80+. Both facts and figures can be found on both Britain's NHS Website or The CDCs webpage. Bare in mind also i have worked with Human Cadavers (dead bodies) and seen, and held the lungs of people who smoked heavily, when you see the difference you wouldn't think they have more chance of living. Regardless of whether all smokers die it doesnt change the fact that the carcinogens in smoking are a poison. You do realize a poison doesn't necessarily have to be lethal to be classed as such. It simply has to have a negative effect on the body. What Does happen to every smoker even if they dont die from it in the long term, their respiratory system becomes less efficient and that IS scientifically proven. The toxins decrease the elasticity of the lungs, preventing a higher amount of air to be taken in. You will notice how good aerobic exercisers e.g marathon runners dont smoke, its because they couldn't get to their top potential if they did. To cut things short to the point, dont smoke if you value your long term health. Oh and your last point, cancer is not a virus, shows how much you know about the medical side of this. It is the uncontrollable growth and division of cells brought about by the carcinogens in the cigarette, this is what causes a tumor or cancer. Whilst mutations happen all they time they are usually unnoticeable and non harmful yet smoking increases the amount of mutations that occur which as a result increase the likelihood of a mutation that IS harmful, and that, is scientific fact.

2016-05-17 09:34:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

To show cause and effect in pure scientific terms is somewhat difficult. Cancer involves numerous changes to cells at a molecular level. To show that smoking directly caused those changes is near impossible, especially in humans where we can't do experiments for obvious reasons. What we can say is that when you look at everyone has cancer of a particular type, say lung cancer, certain commonalities will be present. In this case, smoking.
Studies show that if you smoke, you are more likely to get lung cancer. (actually many other cancers too). But to 100% say that smoking caused any one persons particular cancer is not possible. Those that want you to smoke will say that we can't prove it, and they are right. But anyone with an ounce of common sense will be able to figure out that some things in this world are not just a big coincidence.

2007-08-14 02:34:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and not everyone who gets lung cancer smokes. Cancer is usually not caused by any "one" thing--it is a combination of things. A genetic susceptibility might combine with a toxin or infection to create cancer. Still, the LIKELIHOOD of lung cancer greatly increases if you smoke. Cigarettes are full of many known carcinogens, many of which are known as tumor promoters. Smokers who quit can actually revert (after about 10 years of being smoke-free) to the same lung cancer incidence rate as someone who never smoked. What does this mean? It means smoking may not initiate the cancer, but once that initiation occurs (there are many many tumor initiators, some of which are genetic), smoking causes that one cancer cell to multiply, divide, etc. Without the smoking, that one initiated cancer cell may very well have died off. (Cancers initially require BOTH tumor initiator and tumor promoters although as the cancer progresses, so many mutations may have accumulated that the cancer becomes independent of the initiator and/or promoter). Furthermore, there is more than one type of lung cancer--certain subtypes affect mainly smokers, while others affect non-smokers.

Think of smoking and lung cancer like this: does every fat guy have type II diabetes? No. Is everyone single person with type II diabetes fat? No. But the vast majority of people with type II diabetes are overweight. Being overweight increases the LIKELIHOOD of type II diabetes, while the actual "cause" is very complex. Just like smoking and lung cancer. Or think of it like this...if someone with the flu sneezes in your face, does that mean you will absolutely get the flu? No, maybe you won't. But the chances are much higher that you will get the flu if a sick person sneezes in your face versus if you are alone on a island with no sick people for a 50 mile radius.

It's your body, if you want to smoke, eat 40 pounds of fat and sugar per day, never exercise, and have sick people sneeze on you, go right ahead. But don't expect sympathy if (notice than I am not saying when) you show up in the hospital 25 years from now with type II diabetes, lung cancer, and the flu.

2007-08-14 07:42:24 · answer #4 · answered by knowitall 3 · 0 0

Just to give you my real life experience of cancer.

My father died of cancer three months ago, he never smoked, never went out drinking, and seldom was in any place that smokers were present. He was 84.

My mother is also dying of cancer, she too never smoked or drank alcohol. They had been together for 64 years.

Yet I know a family friend, who smoked 100+ cigarettes a day from an early age, and liked a drink, and she lived to the ripe old age 98, still smoking and drinking. Her death was not related to cancer, but natural causes.

I have to wonder, and this is very controversial, so please forgive me, if many cancers are caused by all the microwave radiation that bombards us every day from mobile phones, satellite navigation, satellite television and the like.

Just my opinion, but thought worth mentioning.

2007-08-17 12:03:34 · answer #5 · answered by Dr David 6 · 0 0

I don't know if you are 100% right, but not too far for sure. I have never smoked in my 50+ years life, but I got lung cancer few years ago. Everyone like me would ask the doctor why. The answer I got is in his 40+ years practice as chest specilist, 50-60% of the lung cancer patients are female non-smokers, 30-40% are male non-smokers. Only 10% of cancer patients are smokers.

I have verified the numbers with other doctors, and they are not too far out. However, if you visit the following site, it will tell you that 90% of the lung cancer patients are smokers, that is wrong, and I don't know why they are cheating the public.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp

2007-08-14 18:01:42 · answer #6 · answered by Tai 3 · 2 0

I’m gonna pack it in too, way to go big Dave.....
Example:
You die in your bed fast asleep, your heart stopped due to poor circulation, due to furred arteries and low blood pressure……
Studies have proved, smokers have furred arteries, If you smoked 20 a day for 20 years it is highly likely smoking will aid your early death..... 20% of lung cancer patients NEVER smoked, 80% HAVE smoked for many years... It isn’t rocket science.... You die of the disease or illness, the cause is difficult to prove, so it is not surprising someone makes a irresponsible statement like that. Smoking related diseases are a fact….. My tip is DON'T START, give up, play the odds, or die before your time, should you not get knocked down by a bus crossing the road first......

2007-08-14 02:42:44 · answer #7 · answered by Doyzer 2 · 1 0

I'm a heavy smoker of 47 years. In my prime at 60. Lungs clear as a baby's. Lung function great. Heart's in fine shape. Arterys fine. How do I know this? All the tests given me before surgery for pancreatic cancer, which will soon take my life.
Smoking has a possible causitive link to pancreatic cancer.
Anecdotal evidence is too strong to ignore.
Don't start smoking. Stop if you already do. If nothing else it's expensive and makes your house and clothes smell bad.

2007-08-14 03:55:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

May i suggest you visit a respiratory ward at your local hospital, or an ENT ward, and see how many people there have smoked who are dying of terminal cancer? I very much doubt the Lancet would publish an article that discredits decades of research, but it is basic science that nothing in cigarettes can be directly linked to causing cancer, so really the question, or point you are making, is pointless.

If you would like to continue smoking, that is, of course, your choice, but please don't be niaive enough to think that the outlook is anything but worrying.

2007-08-14 02:31:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Are you kidding me...My dad is dieing of cancer and it is from smoking for 25 years. Think you might want to check your statistics again!

Here is alittle info for you:

The 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States." This statement is as true today as it was in 1982. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use is an acquired behavior, one that the individual chooses to do, smoking is the most preventable cause of premature death in our society.


Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box), oral cavity, pharynx (throat), and esophagus, and is a contributing cause in the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, liver, uterine cervix, kidney, stomach, colon and rectum, and some leukemias.
About 87% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women, and is one of the most difficult cancers to treat. It is very hard to detect when it is in the earliest, most treatable stage. Fortunately, lung cancer is largely a preventable disease. Groups that promote nonsmoking as part of their religion, such as Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists, have much lower rates of lung cancer and other smoking-

2007-08-14 08:52:45 · answer #10 · answered by jennifer h 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers