Should tobacco be illegal?

[Firethorn]

Three of the oldest recorded people were born in the 1860s, 70s and 80s.

We already know that people live varying amounts of time.  Statistical outliers are to be expected.

No one has addressed the control issues for the basis of these "studies" that show smoking causes cancer or "kills people". Where is the control data for them?

You're like a flat earther who demands proof, but says 'it's FAKE' when shown a shot of the earth from the shuttle.

Scientifically:  Many of the compounds in tobacco smoke have been found to cause cancer. Mice and rats, regularly exposed to tobacco smoke suffer higher rates of lung cancer.

Statistically:  Smokers are much more likely to die from lung cancer than non smokers.  Much like old Coal Miners tended to die from specific lung disorders that appeared pretty much nowhere else.

Due to the ethics of experimenting on humans, we don't have the nice control groups you want.  Looking at correlations - Smokers in an area are more likely to get lung cancer than former smokers, who are in turn more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers.  The increased rate of cancer drops off to the non-smoker rate after about a decade.

The hard evidence that prcludes me or anyone else from saying that most of these people with cancer, lung diseases, cataracts, leukemia, and a thousand and one new "syndromes" etc did not get sick from exposure to chemical solvents, the ingestion of a plethora of harmful particulates, consumption of refined sugar, and a thousand and one food additives?

The non-smokers(like me) are exposed to that stuff as well.  The only difference, averaged across tens of thousands of people, is smoking.

I'm not saying that that stuff isn't bad, just that smoking is proven so.

DESPITE THIS, I still support your right to smoke and use tobacco if you want to.  I support the right of businesses to make the choice themselves.  Just as I have the right to avoid them if they don't mediate it well enough.

[CAnnoneer]

You miss the point.  If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer.  You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property. 

Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.

Now let's see what happens if I am an employee. I have to choose between my health and my career because of somebody else's habit. If I stay, I will get sick. If I go, I incur monetary and professional penalties.

fistful, under your system, the only people with true freedom are the smokers. Everybody else's freedom is limited as a result. If we should argue from the viewpoint of freedom maximization, your system is tyrannical.

As far as I am concerned, tobacco smoke is gaseous excrement. Smoking in my presence is like shitting in my face. I do not oppose the people's right to poop. I just expect them to poop in designated locations, as we do for stools.

[Strings]

>Mice and rats, regularly exposed to tobacco smoke suffer higher rates of lung cancer.<

You're talking about rats and mice that, if you touch them, get cancer. Not exactly proof to me...

>Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.<

Ummm... noooo...

 If you, as an employer decide that the risks of smoking in the workplace bother you, ban smoking on your property. Your right as a property owner.

 there's a baked goods factory here in Manitowoc that doesn't allow smoking, caffiene, or "sweets" on their property. If the workers don't like it, they're free to seek employment elsewhere.

 Big difference between the government saying "no smoking", and a property owner...

[Sergeant Bob]

.

[LAK]

Firethorn

The non-smokers(like me) are exposed to that stuff as well.  The only difference, averaged across tens of thousands of people, is smoking.

The difference is not proven unless there is a control group not exposed to any other known harmful substance.

I could question ten thousand cancer patients and ask how many of them have ingested, just for the sake of arguement, an "average amount" of refined sugar. Or how many have mercury amalgam dental fillings.

If more than x percent said yes, many said "alot" and a few said "none", I could say that it is obvious that these two things cause cancer. If it is lung cancer, and you are going to say it was smoking tobacco - you have to exclude those who use refined sugar and have mercury amalgam dental fillings.

While the Surgeon General, AMA, CDC, FDA etc etc will all fall on smoking, they have little to say about anything else. Write and ask them about such things as refined sugar - and disease and cancer - and they will say something like;

"There is no evidence to show that refined sugar [We just have not bothered to look and have no intention of doing so] .... blah blah blah". Ask them about high fructose corn syrup and you will get a similar reply with the integral disclaimer.

We can say that almost anything in excess is likely to give you health problems. Red wine is reckonned to be full of anti-oxidants and otherwise very good for you. Drink five bottles a day and all of a sudden it is not so good for you anymore. A shot of scotch or brandy after a meal is probably not going to shorten your life; a pint bottle a day is another matter. Sugar, in various forms in small amounts probably won't hurt you. In the form of raw unheated honey it is probably quite beneficial in moderate amounts. Guzzle a mugful everyday and it is probably not not so good for you. A teaspoon of refined sugar in your morning coffee is not likely to kill many people; make it three in ten cups a day, and much more in the form of candies, sweetened this and that, and I would say it is very likely to lead to problems or death.

Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.

You're like a flat earther who demands proof, but says 'it's FAKE' when shown a shot of the earth from the shuttle

Rubbish. Ask any scientist the what, why and how of a control group in any study. If do not have a substantial control group, your "study" means very little.

Show me any study on smoking proving that it causes cancer, with a control group that eliminate the effects of refined sugar. Or airborn particulates of the type that come down from industrial plants, construction sites, etc.

I've seen the curvature of the earth from altitude for myself thanks; show me the conclusive study that "proves" smoking tobacco causes cancer. 

Sgt Bob

Nah, you don't need us to show you proof

How so? It is "modern medicine", and you, who claim "smoking kills". You therefore have the burden of proof.

[Paddy]

Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.

The problem with that theory is that nicotine is extremely addictive.  So much so, that continued use increases nicotine receptors in the brain which further increases demand.  So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.

[jefnvk]

So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.

As a 'casual' or 'moderate' smoker, I'd disagree.  Considering in the last four months, I have had about 3 cigars, I'm not too worried.  This is after a summer of smoking a few cigars a week

[Firethorn]

The difference is not proven unless there is a control group not exposed to any other known harmful substance.

Actually; that would violate the rules for a double blind study.  If you're trying to isolate whether or not smoking causes increased rates of cancer you WOULDN'T want to sit there and isolate your test group from other substances.

If you sit there and do a test where you do a test group of Smokers+Coal exhaust+car exhaust+industrial cleaners and a control group of none of that, you don't have the same amount of isolation.  All you get is that lung cancer decreases if you removed TSmoke&coal&car&cleaners.  We know pollution from coal power plants is bad for you because there are increased illness rates around coal plants, that decreases as exposure decreases(you move further away or at least upwind on average from the plant).

As long as the other exposures are similar in both the test and control groups, it evens out.

I could question ten thousand cancer patients and ask how many of them have ingested, just for the sake of arguement, an "average amount" of refined sugar. Or how many have mercury amalgam dental fillings.

This is closer to the way studies such as this go(I'm oversimplifying):

We ask 10k people, of say 70 years old.  The two questions are: Do you smoke? and Have you had(or currently have) lung cancer?

Let's assume at the time of the study, 50% respond yes to the first question.  We end up having a 50% smoking rate for 70 year olds.
For the second question, we get that 5 non-smokers got lung cancer, and 28 smokers did.

More realistically, we hit all age groups and get more data points to analyze to control for things like age.

And you'd likely get that, at least for lung cancer, that the rate of fillings or sugar are NOT higher than the general population.  Once you have correlation, then you start investigating closer.  While double-blind tests would be nice, ethics about human studies combined with the length of time and actual percentage rates make that impractical.

If more than x percent said yes, many said "alot" and a few said "none", I could say that it is obvious that these two things cause cancer. If it is lung cancer, and you are going to say it was smoking tobacco - you have to exclude those who use refined sugar and have mercury amalgam dental fillings.

You're missing a critical point:  What's the rate of these two items in the non-cancer population?  Nearly everybody is going to have a filling - so while there will be a correlation if you only look at cancer patients.  Such correlation will disappear if you consider that nearly 100% of people period have fillings.

When you look at lung cancer and see that 90% of those with it smoked, and the percentage of smokers in the general population is only 50% - then you have an issue.

Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.

I think I mentioned something like that - cigarettes are targeted more because people tend to use them more.  The occasional cigar isn't too bad.  Heck, the occasional cig isn't too bad, but how many 'occasional' cigarette smokers are there?  Then again - who's to say that chemically treated tobacco isn't worse than untreated tobacco?  We're also not talking about heart failure - we're talking about lung cancer.

Show me any study on smoking proving that it causes cancer, with a control group that eliminate the effects of refined sugar. Or airborn particulates of the type that come down from industrial plants, construction sites, etc.

Like I said, a real control group, especially one of adequate size, controls for all of those.  You don't eliminate refined sugar, you simply make sure that there's not a bias in your study group that's independent of the the control factor.  Plenty of smokers eat lots of sugar, as do plenty of non-smokers.  Thus I have to ask you:  Do you have any evidence that either smokers or non-smokers consume more sugar?

Wikipedia states that less than 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers.
Gallop reports smoking rate in 1944 at 41%
Wiki also states that there's a 20 year lag between smoking rates and lung cancer.

Let me ask you a question:  What environmental or behavioral condition, other than smoking, would cause smokers to vastly over represent themselves for cases of lung cancer?

[Perd Hapley]

You miss the point.  If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer.  You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property. 

Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.

No, I didn't propose any of that.  I'm saying that employers have every right to hire, fire, employ or not employ, insure or not insure, serve or not serve, any employee or customer they wish, for any reason they wish, so long as they honor contracts and agreements.  I support Walgreen's right to fire pharmacists who won't dispense abortifacients.  And I am anti-abortion.  I support the rights of uh, uh, that company in Oklahoma (whoever they are) that won't allow their employees to leave guns in their cars.  And I am pro-gun.  Employers have a right to make such demands.  Their employees have a right to move on.  Just so long as contracts and agreements are fulfilled. 

Now let's see what happens if I am an employee. I have to choose between my health and my career because of somebody else's habit. If I stay, I will get sick. If I go, I incur monetary and professional penalties.

Tough.  You don't have a right to expect others to stop smoking, so that you can have the job you want. 

fistful, under your system, the only people with true freedom are the smokers. Everybody else's freedom is limited as a result. If we should argue from the viewpoint of freedom maximization, your system is tyrannical.

No, employers can also refuse to hire smokers altogether, under "my system."  They can hire them and not insure them.  They can hire them and then make them wear yellow stars.  So long as the employee can terminate his employment, no one's rights are infringed. 

[LAK]

RileyMC

The problem with that theory is that nicotine is extremely addictive.  So much so, that continued use increases nicotine receptors in the brain which further increases demand.  So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.

Wasn't it not so long ago that internal memos turned up from the factory cigarette makers exposing how they were tweaking their cigarettes with more nicotine?

In any case, I for one have quit smoking a few times. I smoke primarily because I like smoking good tobacco. Especially in a cigar or pipe. The Skydancer cigarettes made in OK by Seneca indians not only has good tobacco - it is additive free. AS a bonus they are one of the cheapest cigs on the market.

-------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[LAK]

Firethorn

[etc] ... As long as the other exposures are similar in both the test and control groups, it evens out.
Most unscientific; since you can not prove which element is the actual cause.

While double-blind tests would be nice, ethics about human studies combined with the length of time and actual percentage rates make that impractical.

= past studies showing smoking causes cancer are inconclusive.

You're missing a critical point:  What's the rate of these two items in the non-cancer population?  Nearly everybody is going to have a filling - so while there will be a correlation if you only look at cancer patients.  Such correlation will disappear if you consider that nearly 100% of people period have fillings.

Actually, you will find that mercury amalgam fillings are nowhere near the 100% mark in use - except amongst the lower classes.

When you look at lung cancer and see that 90% of those with it smoked, and the percentage of smokers in the general population is only 50% - then you have an issue.

It is still important to know what other factors are involved. I would be very sceptical of any study that claims that 90% smoked tobacco products. And there is no differentiation  between modern factory cigarettes and pure tobacco; therein lies another factor. Cancer is largely a post WW2 affliction, I would speculate that the chemical treatment and additives in modern cigarettes is higher post WW2.

Like I said, a real control group, especially one of adequate size, controls for all of those.  You don't eliminate refined sugar, you simply make sure that there's not a bias in your study group that's independent of the the control factor.  Plenty of smokers eat lots of sugar, as do plenty of non-smokers.

Yes, but how many?
I am certain that the higher up the class system, the lower the consumption.

Thus I have to ask you: Do you have any evidence that either smokers or non-smokers consume more sugar?

Why ask me? This is something the medical establishment needs to answer before making sweeping claims about tobacco.

Wikipedia states that less than 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers.
Gallop reports smoking rate in 1944 at 41%
Wiki also states that there's a 20 year lag between smoking rates and lung cancer.

Let me ask you a question:  What environmental or behavioral condition, other than smoking, would cause smokers to vastly over represent themselves for cases of lung cancer?

I am still sceptical of the 90% figure; smoking is an easy out for some of the medical establishment and their cronies in mother gov - and the most profitable industries in food, chemical industry etc etc.

Just speculating though, heavy smokers, and perhaps smokers in general in the lower classes, are more likely to work in environments laden with solvent and other chemical vapors, particulates, dust, etc. And consume almost entirely or at least more processed food, and food containing harmful additives.

------------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[cordex]

Just speculating though, heavy smokers, and perhaps smokers in general in the lower classes, are more likely to work in environments laden with solvent and other chemical vapors, particulates, dust, etc. And consume almost entirely or at least more processed food, and food containing harmful additives.

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... don't start your biased ranting against good old solvents, chemical vapors, particulates, dust and processed foods with additives!  You're one o' them medical establishment henchmen, aren't you?  How are your cronies in mommie.gov?

I know folks who used solvents all their lives and never got sick.  All of the oldest people alive today were born when dust and particulates were very common around big cities.  NOT EVEN ONE WAS BORN AFTER ANTI-POLLUTION LAWS BECAME COMMON!  Finally, processed foods and food additives have never been proven in a double-blind study unconnected to Big Heathcare to be harmful to your health.

Check your facts.  Cigarettes aren't the only things getting a bum rap here!  Many other healthy things like coal dust and smoke, processed foods and additive, mercury vapor and solvents are considered to be unhealthy just because Mommie.Gov doesn't want us to be free.

[Firethorn]

Lak,

When I compared you to the flat-earthers, I didn't say that I think that you think that the earth is flat.  What I'm saying is that you will generate any excuse to continue your belief that smoking isn't hazardous to your health.  Either you deny evidence, say it's not good enough, that there are other factors, or it's not studies enough.  Etc etc etc...

The rest of the stuff you talk about is stuff you study once you've found the link.  There are probably studies out there that address every point.  Just like I've mentioned that yes, we do have other things to blame for lung cancer, like coal power. 

For example, my simple two question test can be expanded to questionaire size(along with $20 to get people to fill the monster out).  Economic standards can be considered, tobacco type used(cigs, cigars, pipes, snuff, water bong, etc...), rate of usage, etc...  Just count on having to send out more questionairs for good statistical significance for some of the more estoric correlation possibilities.

It still comes up that there is a positive correlation between tobacco, especially heavy use, and lung cancer.  If you look at the segment of the population that's quit smoking - cancer rate is initially as high as the smokers, but over the course of a decade or two drops down to that of a non-smoker.  This is at an extremely significant statistical level.

Second, tobacco smoke contains significant levels of a number of known carcinogens* - so we have a Method.

If 'tobacco' was in court for murder of various people via lung cancer the amount of evidence the prosecution could come up with would guarentee a conviction - it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, you'd have a hard time pinning any one case on smoking - but when you look at the statistics - it's clear.

Now, on another point - why can't we blame any particular case of lung cancer in a smoker on smoking?

From the wiki stuff - 90% of lung cancer cases occur in smokers.  While the actual rate of smoking in the USA never reached 50%, we'll use that figure because it's easy.

10% of the cases were for non-smokers, so on average you'd expect 10% of the cases of cancer in smokers to be 'natural' cases.  Well that or 'other causes'.

You have to realize, my standard of evidence requirements are quite high - I doubt global warming will be as bad as they say, but it's a difference between studies looking at millions of humans vs 1 earth, for a condition that has about a 20 year lag time vs a weather system that's been KNOWN to have cycles in the eons and longer, including ice ages, as well as regular warm periods where it's far warmer on average than today.
*determined to be such through various lab testing methodoligies.

[LAK]

Cordex,

And precisely where are the double blind studies?

How many of those ex-big gov folk you mention from the FDA, CDC, AMA etc go on to hold well paid positions in the industries they regulate; such as food additives?

I know folks who used solvents all their lives and never got sick.

Ditto; heavy smokers.

All of the oldest people alive today were born when dust and particulates were very common around big cities.

I did mention that myself earlier in this thread concerning longivity in general. And tobacco was often smoked rolled paper sans filters - and chemical processes - in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Food additives were far less comon - so was gov regulation of food in general.

Firethorn

Either you deny evidence, say it's not good enough, that there are other factors, or it's not studies enough.  Etc etc etc...

Well; where are the studies. The scientific proof?

You are arguing a position for which there is no concrete evidence.

You go on to state;

The rest of the stuff you talk about is stuff you study once you've found the link.  There are probably studies out there that address every point.

So there you have it. "Probably"? I'd like to see them.

"Smoking kills" has become a religion of faith. An assumption; "everybody knows". It is really a case of, everyone has been led to believe.

If 'tobacco' was in court for murder of various people via lung cancer the amount of evidence the prosecution could come up with would guarentee a conviction - it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would say not; so far the only "evidence" presented is circumstantial.

-------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[LAK]

And for what it's worth ....

Chromium - [and refined sugars? - LAK ] a major player in the prevention of arteriosclerosis

Chromium - a major player in the prevention of arteriosclerosis and a risk factor for diabetes. From Dr John Mansfield's paper on arteriosclerosis and heart disease.

Since the early 1960s chromium has been recognised as being essential to human beings. Substantial geographic and racial variations have been found in chromium concentrations reflecting probable differences in chromium ingestion in various parts of the world and chromium appears to be absolutely necessary in the maintenance of human health. There is now an exceedingly well documented paper coming from the Biolab Medical Unit demonstrating a marked decrease of chromium levels both in the sweat, hair and serum with age.

Chromium levels can be seen to be lower in males than females from about the age of 20 onwards and there is a marked decrease in chromium levels between the ages of 45 and 65 which correlates well with the increase in coronary artery disease during those years. This study was the result of a retrospective computer analysis of chromium levels in 51,665 samples of hair, sweat and serum from 40,872 patients according to age and sex. The numbers involved here are so enormous that very little doubt can be ascribed to these findings. [24]

Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus have lower serum chromium than non-diabetics and chromium supplementation in diabetics has been shown to improve glucose tolerance, decrease blood cholesterol and triglycerides and increase high density lipoprotein cholesterol. [25]

The aorta in patients dying of coronary artery disease has been shown in an Israeli study [26] to contain exceedingly little chromium, whereas the aorta of patients not dying in accidents has been shown to contain aortic chromium. Chromium supplementation has been shown to reverse arteriosclerosis in rabbits.

To test whether increased chromium intake could improve glucose control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Richard Anderson (Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, M.D., USA) and colleagues in the USA and China studied 180 people with Type 2 Diabetes. Patients were assigned to three groups; a placebo group, a group where the normal diet was supplemented with 100 meg of chromium (as chromium picolinate) two times a day and a third group given 500 mcg of chromium - 2 x three times a day. All patients continued to take their normal medications. There was enormous improvement in all objective criteria in patients taking high dosage chromium, even by two months, and more markedly so by four months. [27]

Natural sugars and grains do contain substantial concentrations of chromium sufficient to facilitate the metabolism of these high carbohydrate foods. However, almost all chromium is removed during the refining process leading to the production of most of the sugars which we eat, either in the form of sucrose or glucose. Evidence from human studies links deficient or marginal chromium intake with diets high in such processed carbohydrates.

Such findings would correlate well with the observations that societies who increase their refined sugar intake have a very high incidence of coronary artery disease. While the amount of fat in the diet has not increased significantly over the past one hundred years, refined sucrose intake has increased by over a thousand percent and it is this factor which lead me, back in the 1960's, to feel very uncomfortable about the cholesterol theory.

Thus, chromium depletion is demonstrably a major factor in the formation of high serum cholesterol levels. Chromium supplementation of a previously low chromium diet decreased rat serum cholesterol levels and in males restrained the tendency of cholesterol levels to increase with advancing age. Other studies showed that elevated age dependent serum cholesterol levels in rats consuming white purified sugar. In contrast, low cholesterol levels were found in rats ingesting brown sugar or white sugar with added chromium. All these findings and countless other ones of a similar nature suggest that serum cholesterol is not a fundamental cause of coronary artery disease, but a result of other factors such as chromium deficiency, which are themselves major factors in the engendering of this disease.
 
http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/article.cfm?id=319

Note:

In addition, there is some evidence that refined flour and sugar deplete even more chromium from the body. Reduced absorption related to aging, diets that are stressful to the digestive system, and the modern refined diet all contribute to chromium deficiency. Higher fat intake also may inhibit chromium absorption. If chromium is as important as we think it is to blood sugar metabolism, its deficiency may be in part responsible, along with the refined and processed diet, for the third leading cause of death (more than 300,000 yearly) in this country, diabetes mellitus, and this figure does not reflect other deaths that may be related to chromium deficiency, since high blood sugar levels seen in diabetes also increase the progression of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, our number one killer.

http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Information/Weightloss/Research/chromium1.htm

[LAK]

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 84, No. 5, 1171-1176, November 2006
? 2006 American Society for Nutrition

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

Consumption of sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and the risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective study1,2,3
Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist and Alicja Wolk
1 From the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (SCL and AW), and the Department of Surgery and the Centre for Clinical Research, Central Hospital, V?ster?s, Sweden (LB)


Background: Emerging evidence indicates that hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia may be implicated in the development of pancreatic cancer. Frequent consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer by inducing frequent postprandial hyperglycemia, increasing insulin demand, and decreasing insulin sensitivity.

Objective: The objective of the study was to examine prospectively the association of the consumption of added sugar (ie, sugar added to coffee, tea, cereals, etc) and of high-sugar foods with the risk of pancreatic cancer in a population-based cohort study of Swedish women and men.

Design: A food-frequency questionnaire was completed in 1997 by 77 797 women and men aged 4583 y who had no previous diagnosis of cancer or history of diabetes. The participants were followed through June 2005.

Results: During a mean follow-up of 7.2 y, we identified 131 incident cases of pancreatic cancer. The consumption of added sugar, soft drinks, and sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit was positively associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer. The multivariate hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest consumption categories were 1.69 (95% CI: 0.99, 2.89; P for trend = 0.06) for sugar, 1.93 (1.18, 3.14; P for trend = 0.02) for soft drinks, and 1.51 (0.97, 2.36; P for trend = 0.05) for sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit.

Conclusion: High consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1171

[LAK]

The politics of sugar: why your government lies to you about this disease-promoting ingredient

http://www.newstarget.com/009797.html

Comparing what I know, see and have read, I would say that sugar is a greater killer than smoking tobacco. And there is so much overlap on the claimed effects, without some difinitive research it is impossible to say for sure that smoking pure tobacco in moderation or less does much harm to anyone.

[Firethorn]

LAK, just what are you arguing about?

That sugar, especially in large quantities, is bad for you is already widely known.  Heck, I've stated in previous posts that corn syrup(the usage of which is promoted due to governmennt policies) is even worse.  Personally, I think that it's a big source of our obesity epidemic, and might save more lives with some controls than banning smoking.  And I've already stated that I DON'T WANT TO BAN SMOKING.  I do not support bans on smoking, believing that that is a personal/business decision.

I'm hardly arguing that smoking is the only ill in the world; that with it eliminated we'll be living in a land of peace, prosperity, and immortality.  There are many other dangerous substances out there ranging from apple seeds and char-broiled meat to stuff like mercury and botullism toxin.

I've simply stated that smoking causes lung cancer.  There are studies that show smokers, even when the study controls for various factors like location and economic condition,  have a vastly higher chance of developing lung cancer than non-smokers.  That the risk of cancer goes up as the exposure goes up, that the rate drops when usage decreases.  Cancer causing substances have been found in tobacco and it's smoke.

Tobacco smoke is NOT the sole cause of lung cancer.  It also has links with cardiovascular disease(like the first of your articles), but I stay away from that as there are plenty of other risk factors that interfere-sloth, overeating, overeating the wrong foods, heredity, etc...  Pancreatic cancer?  I haven't even poked that with a stick.

[LAK]

Right; and I am simply saying it is unproven. There is plenty of overlap in the claimed effects of refined sugar for just one example - and smoking. The bottom line is what is needed is some conclusive scientific work - not circumstantial evidence. Other than that it looks like you and I do not disagree abut alot of things.

[Firethorn]

Right; and I am simply saying it is unproven. There is plenty of overlap in the claimed effects of refined sugar for just one example - and smoking. The bottom line is what is needed is some conclusive scientific work - not circumstantial evidence. Other than that it looks like you and I do not disagree abut alot of things.

Where's the link between refined sugar and lung cancer?

[LAK]

It's related to "heart disease" directly and other cancers. Cancers, once they start, are basically the same form of physiological abberation - the mechanics of it as it were. However there seems to be some mixed messages from the medical establishment about what actually causes it.

Why are "vaccines" being offered for cancer? Well, it is claimed that it is a virus that causes cervical cancer for example. A virus?

That's right - so they say. Hepatitis B is linked to liver cancer, and so on. And in addition to preventative vaccines, they are proffering therapeutic vaccines which are claimed to boost the immune system, which in turn more effectively fights the cancer.

So how is it that it is viruses which are being pinned to other cancers and not that of the lung? Is it not possible, even logical, that it is perhaps a virus or viruses that are causing lung cancer?

Refined sugar is linked to a number of serious health problems. People with these problems often have immune deficiences. They get sick more often, get colds, flu viruses etc more often than others. If it is viruses that cause cancers, and people with immune deficiences that get them, then it is quite possible - logical - that the intake of things like sugar might be among the causes.

Smoking tobacco, among other things has been very common among many cultures all over the world for thousands of years. It is only late twentieth century western culture that has experienced the explosion of cancer and other unexplained maladies. The growing number of "syndromes" on the list continue to be described in terms of symptoms only, while the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry peddle hundreds of "treatments" for the symptoms, not much progression seems to be generated on identifying specific causes.

Something rotten in Denmark. As the saying goes.

[Sergeant Bob]

Something rotten in Denmark. As the saying goes.

Yep. You're certainly right about that! Smoke'm if ya got'em!

[The Rabbi]

It's threads like this that make me glad I've stopped posting.  Next someone will start a thread about whether rocks are edible or whether it is just a gov't inspired plot to keep people from having free food.

[Firethorn]

Why are "vaccines" being offered for cancer? Well, it is claimed that it is a virus that causes cervical cancer for example. A virus?

Yes, a virus. To be specific - one that inserts it's materials into the host cell's nucleus and messes with the reproductive cycle of the cell.

Any wonder that it might increase the odds of cancer, then?

So how is it that it is viruses which are being pinned to other cancers and not that of the lung? Is it not possible, even logical, that it is perhaps a virus or viruses that are causing lung cancer?

Almost exclusively in smokers?

Refined sugar is linked to a number of serious health problems. People with these problems often have immune deficiences. They get sick more often, get colds, flu viruses etc more often than others. If it is viruses that cause cancers, and people with immune deficiences that get them, then it is quite possible - logical - that the intake of things like sugar might be among the causes.

Again, why is it targeting the smokers so much more than the non-smokers?  Would you consider smoking at least a contributing factor then?

Smoking tobacco, among other things has been very common among many cultures all over the world for thousands of years. It is only late twentieth century western culture that has experienced the explosion of cancer and other unexplained maladies. The growing number of "syndromes" on the list continue to be described in terms of symptoms only, while the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry peddle hundreds of "treatments" for the symptoms, not much progression seems to be generated on identifying specific causes.

For thousands of years?  Maybe for the native americans, with their generally short lifespans and little in the way of records, maybe, but for Europeans it didn't enter the picture until the 1700's.

As for the various studies, I'd suggest using the internet.  As I have already heard and seen enough evidence to convince me, I'm not up on the various studies.  That's why I say that there is probably a study about some of your points - I'm not going to lie and say there is when I don't remember seeing one that addresses just that point.

[Sergeant Bob]

As for the various studies, I'd suggest using the internet.  As I have already heard and seen enough evidence to convince me, I'm not up on the various studies.  That's why I say that there is probably a study about some of your points - I'm not going to lie and say there is when I don't remember seeing one that addresses just that point.

Don't bother arguing with LAK. If he drank a gallon of whiskey and then one beer then woke up with a headache, he'd argue that you need to give him proof it wasn't caused by that one beer.