Posted on 08/27/2006 8:20:10 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Because they don't understand the whole picture. For every government/ngo grant-driven research program there are ten biotech startups working on novel approaches and funded with venture capital, debt, and the proceeds of public stock offerings. When one of these small enterprises passes an FDA hurdle in clinical trials, their stock shoots up. If they ever produce, it will stay up and go higher. No one ever got wealthy by spending money, even on research. Big pharma got big by selling product, not by spending cash on dead-end R&D.
Really? Show me. I'm from Missouri.
I wish sick people like you were a lie.
Sadly, you're not.
But the anti-tobacco jihad wasn't about curing people of smoking, it was about revenue enhancements for liberal's program funding. Of the hundreds of millions already paid out by the tobacco industry, only a very small percentage has gone to stop smoking programs or research into disease cures. The vast majority gets dumped into general funds and spent as the liberals running the governments choose to spend it. And all the while, the hypocrisy of greedily counting the money collected from addicted people, a large percentage of whom will die from that addiction, without social programs trying to actually stop the addictions and thus stop the inflow of funds is screaming at us ... but Americans have been conditioned to not have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Not true if you ar a uranium miner - those that smoked less than 10 a day had less lung cancer than nonsmokers
OK, I give. Why would a small amount of smoking protect a person? Would that also work with asbestos exposure?
OK, I give. Why would a small amount of smoking protect a person? Would that also work with asbestos exposure?
You never kept up. Asbestos, was another money, GRUB.
I assume.....you aren't a lawyer.
Yikes. You are a potiential lawyer.$$$$$$$$
Free spiirit goes to hell in A HANDBASKET, when one can make sevreral hundred thousand, on the back of Mummy and Daddy's college fund.
GOPJ ANSWERED: "Years ago I had a talk with a cancer researcher and asked how they ever came up with the idea of giving people medicine that was so toxic it would cause their hair to fall out -- it was like they were poisoning people. He smiled."
GOPJ ADDED: "He [the researcher] said, "Some years ago there was a doctor who felt he could give his patients a healthy diet, vitamins, minerals etc. He would boost their bodies up so they could fight the cancer."
Do you think we may have learned something about nutrition and cancer since "years" before "some years ago?"
Do you think that with 661 unsolicited, independant, medical and scientific studies on fucoidan since 1970, showing it to have statistically significant effects on various ailments, e.g. cancer, inflammation, diabetes, etc., that maybe those research scientists might have discovered something new???
"OK, I give. Why would a small amount of smoking protect a person? Would that also work with asbestos exposure?"
Not asbestos - radon.
The first tests in the 70's to correlate radon exposure to lung cancer were done on miners who were exposed to a lot more than typical radon housewife.
But the results did not makes sense till they controlled for cigarette smoking . Those miners who smoked less than 10 per day had a SIGNIFICANT reduction in cancer vs that those that did not smoke. The study suggested that a small amount of smoke caused a thickening of the mucous lining that protected the lung membrane from the radon particles.
I read of this study in the NY Times Sunday magazine - right about 1978 or so.
Surprisingly enough, I have never seen a reference to this study again - it would surely F up the arguments used to land gazillion dollar settlements for lots of people.
The things you have posted about me without even knowing me are despicable. They are also in violation of the posting guidelines. Please refrain.
YEs - absolutely because the data reveals that moderate smoking - less than 10 a day - has a prophylactic effect.
Personally, I don't know how one can smoke more than 5 per day.
And there is no evidence that 5 smokes per day is harmfull.
On one disease perhaps. (the study you referred to is 30 or so years old and not been duplicated,,correct?)
So what about the other smoking caused diseases? Artery disease, emphysema, etc.
Are those outweighed for uranium workers?
What about other people who do not work in that industry? Do you advocate them smoking?
"So what about the other smoking caused diseases? Artery disease, emphysema, etc.
Are those outweighed for uranium workers?"
I am not sure that there is any traceable incidence of coronary or pulminary damage from less than 10 smokes a day.
In fact my doctor told me that less than 5 smokes is completely safe and that living in any city is equivalent to smoking 1 pack a day.
So you advocate people smoke, but less than 10 a day.
In fact my doctor told me that less than 5 smokes is completely safe and that living in any city is equivalent to smoking 1 pack a day.
If your doctor said so, it must be so.
However, most doctors disagree with him. A woman I knew used to go looking for doctors who would tell her what she wanted to hear.
You seem to think that there is no correlation between dosage and toxicity. If so , you need to understand that every breath you breath has an atom of everything in it - from tobacco to Elvis farts.
Naturally, if you take a Puritanical view wherein things are manifestly evil, (I dont worship tobacco as a devil god personally), then no miniscule amount is safe.
You are mistaken.
Naturally, if you take a Puritanical view wherein things are manifestly evil,
What a bizarre extension.
(I dont worship tobacco as a devil god personally), then no miniscule amount is safe.
You are projecting your notions onto me.
We are talking about things that are a matter of choice. People who do things that are potentially harmful to themselves and by extension, their families, either do not care about their health or their families, or they take a secondary position to the desires for personal satisfaction.
It is my opinion that people who have others who love and depend upon them are selfish when they do things that are self destructive. But thats just me.
It is not just smoking but other personal choices. Alcohol immoderately, gluttony, speeding 90 mph for the thrill, and other options come to mind.
I'm not a smoking NAZI, I have told you folks that several times. And I'm sure guilty of doing lots of things in my life that were selfish, but I'm not in denial about it. And I don't try to rationalize why it's OK to do those optional things in lieu of trying to do something about it.
You know in your heart of hearts that smoking the way you describe it, just a few smokes a day is the rare exception, not the rule. You also know that it's a dumb thing to do, but you seem so opposed to anyone who dares to question it's health effects that you abandon rational arguments in favor of bizarre side issues such as advocating smoking among certain workers based on a nebulous study from long ago.
If you go to any of the normal "smoking threads", you will find me there defending the property rights of the smokers. But most of those there who align with me don't pretend that smoking is OK, just that it's not the business of government.
You have a perfect right to do what you will with your body, but you have no rational expectation that you deserve applause or support for the selfish act of purposeful self destructive habits.
I will never change your mind and you will not change mine, so lets just let it drop.
Peace.
' so lets just let it drop'
agreed
Thanks. Interesting stuff...
Thanks for the ping. Even though I missed it, you were wise to put it in the tech sidebar!
The things I posted about you, were compiled from this thread. You're a sick pup. Don't care to have anything else to do with you. Bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.