Smoking and Cancer
There is a report out which is receiving a lot of prominence here in Ireland.
They say that rates of cancer are likely to double in the next twenty five years.
What amused me was that the Irish Times printed an image at the top of their article –
However, there was only one brief mention of smoking in the article –
Some trends are contributing to lower rates of cancer, such as increased screening and reduced smoking rates, while growing rates of obesity are leading to an increased incidence of some cancers.
Switching over to another source – The Journal – [which makes no reference to smoking at all] we get the statement –
Using this model, cases of prostate cancer, lung cancer and colon cancer are set to more than double in the next 25 years to 6,880, 5,450 and 3,810 cases respectively.
So by their own admission lung cancer rates are in fact increasing markedly.
We now have a situation where smoking rates have dropped dramatically, yet cancer rates [including lung cancer] are increasing. Seeing as we are constantly being told that smoking causes lung cancer [and a load of other cancers as well] should we not be seeing an equally marked decrease?
There are only two possible conclusions one can draw from the report.
Either smoking has no effect on the rates of cancer, or else smoking actually protects against cancer, the latter case accounting for the reported increase?
Tobacco Control love to wring results from statistics, so why shouldn’t I?
Proof that smoking protects against cancer.
“…smoking protects against cancer.”
You might be right. But I ain’t gonna start smoking again to find out. 😉
I’m not saying one way or the other. I do notice though that the Tobacco Controllers aren’t saying anything, or at least anything that I have found. If the figures had gone the other way they would be clamouring for all the credit?
“Tobacco Control love to wring results from statistics, so why shouldn’t I?”
Because you’re a tobacco company shill. Or a bot. Or both. And, not to forget: you’re supposed to listen to your betters and believe every word they kindly see fit to utter, not wrangle statistics yourself. Shame on you!
😉
😈
So, the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, the food we eat is officially approved, booze consumption is down. Even background radioactivity is down.
What can it be?
Aha. It’s obvious, innit.
Bacon. (Now who is forbidden from eating bacon?)
Evil fumes from grilled and fried bacon.
Do we, the EU, still subsidise sugar and tobacco growers?
Don’t forget barbecues. The smoke from those is ten times more toxic than Sellafield cleaning out its systems.
The tobacco control emperor has no clothes. We’ve had similar articles to this in Australian media. It’s going to be interesting to see what convoluted non-logic TC comes up with to explain these statistics.
When TC finds something it disagrees with, or is contrary to its religion it just looks the other way and pretends it never happened. TC never debates. That’s why it excludes anyone who has any connection whatsoever from the tobacco industry.
Look at the cancer stats minus the current prejudices or special interests and I’d have thought employment was the major cause of cancer – either directly though industrial diseases or indirectly from the increasing stress in modern workplaces. To give a personal example – one side of my family’s been involved in the Sally Ann since around 1900, but for generations now every family member I know died of some cancer or other, and none of them have smoked or drunk alcohol in over a century. Poor buggers all died sooner than they might have as a long term result of trying to provide for their families in the best ways they could.
I could not agree more. In an ideal world we would all be relaxing on a tropical island, smoking pot. Of course you can only share said island with friends….