Sean, you know I respect you too, and yes, we do disagree on this topic.
I do find it interesting though that you take the word of one doctor that says smoking caused your relatives deaths, when many doctors now freely admit that they really don't know what causes cancer other than genetics. Remember, just because someone has an M.D. after their name, doesn't make them infallible.
Neil:
I appreciate the reciprocity. However, I bolded something above, which I think is a faux pas on your part. How do you know that I'm taking the word of, as you put it, "one doctor that says smoking caused your relatives deaths"? That's quite an assumption on your part. I bolded this, to show the extent that you're willing to reach in attempts to bolster your side. Because there are a lot of MDs in my family, it is a well-known fact among us that you NEVER go by just one opinion or diagnosis. You always get a second or third opinion --
any doctor will tell you that. And my family has always done that. In the case of those relatives, as many as five different doctors were consulted, and in the case of two relatives (grandparents), one British and one German doctor were consulted, in their respective countries. (I'm dipping my hand a bit as to my family tree -- the German side is my father's side of the family; the British doctor was actually located in northern Ireland, which is a clue to my Mom's side of the family.)
So it can safely be said that none of the deaths were attributed to smoking by
any single source. And the diagnoses weren't colored by U.S. capitalistic-based cancer societies -- expertise from abroad was leveraged.
I could also tell you about my case right now. I have extreme COPD. On my bad days, I can't walk 15' without being out of breath. On most days, I can seem to function fine, but I no longer have any endurance. I have a V.A. doctor, so they are not so pressed on time. I spent an hour talking to my doctor, and while she does recommend I quit smoking and try some of those worthless smoking cessation programs (she admitted they don't work), she also admitted that my problems are not caused by smoking. Although the "forms" do state that I am a smoker, so my problems are listed as smoking related, despite the facts.
I appreciate you sharing that with me (us). Actually the studies that I've read about COPD do
NOT attribute it to smoking. That may surprise you. From what I've read, COPD comes from a number of sources, including repeated exposure to hidden allergens, and to certain viruses.
Contrary to what many would think, smoking actually helps me breathe easier. Which my doctor had to admit to. It does cause a mucus lining that builds up which then enables me to get it out, thereby breathing easier. Something the medicines can't seem to do.
That's exactly the information I have, as well. I'm probably surprising you at the moment. While traditional medication may focus on trying to alleviate the root cause (often unsuccessfully), certain remedies approach the problem differently. Although I'm not normally a subscriber to homeopathic remedies, the very definition of them -- to introduce an irritant in small quantities to *force* the body's healing system into high gear -- does have value. In a way, smoking, for you, may be a homeopathic remedy. It introduces an irritant that your lungs are reacting to (producing a thick lining of mucous), which enables your natural coughing reflex to get it out. This is not new information.
The point of that, is just to show you that for every case you can bring, someone can bring a case on the opposite side. So, who are we to believe?? I stick with the actual scientific studies that are done, and go by them.
I've
yet to see a "scientific study" on this, with any sort of credibility. Most of the material I've seen is from those luddite websites. (I apologize if this comes out thorny; I'm just telling it like I see it.)
It just so happens that they are contrary to what many want you to believe about smoking. Don't any little bells go off for you when EVERY case of lung cancer is attributed to smoking or second hand smoke?? Does that really seem like it should be right to you??
No, not every case of lung cancer I've heard of, was attributed to smoking or second-hand smoke. In fact, lately, I'm seeing and hearing a lot about asbestos-related cancers, black lung, and a very specific type of lung cancer that afflict those working for long years in salt mines. So no bells for me, and there's no question of "seeming right."
And, as far as the sites I linked to... no, they are not from some medical journal. I don't so much care how eloquently they are written, or who wrote them, as much as I do on what they actually have to say, and what facts are presented that can be checked out. Both sites passed with flying colors to my satisfaction on that account. So, go ahead and dismiss them if you want to.
Well, this is where you and I differ. I do place a lot of emphasis on content and how it's delivered. It's not enough for me to accept as fact something when someone says "just because it is so," or "so-and-so research 'has shown' this to be true." Really? *How* does that paper show that? I like to read the actual papers, rather than someone's (read: some site's) purported Cliff Notes on it.
(Interesting, btw, that some of the links come from the "wayback machine," and aren't able to stand up / exist anymore on their own. If there was a conspiracy to suppress that information, those copies would've been removed as well.) When we have an agenda, we can read into, and take away from, anything we want, to form our "message." The paper could actually be saying something completely different from what the "quoter" is excerpting, but because two sentences fit the quoter's message (and agenda), an entire website is sprung up for that agenda.
Respectfully,
-Sean
