Posted on 08/27/2006 8:20:10 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
It's always possible a great conspiracy exists, but if they didn't publish news and if research money didn't flow in, there would be no cures.
I can remember some sharp oncologists talking about this possibility over a decade ago.
Einstein smoked (a pipe). SO much for that BS. Get a life.
I have a life, and so do you, for now.
But don't worry, you're smart for smoking. Just think how smart you will seem to your family and loved ones as they watch you in hospice.
But since you are making the case that smoking is smart, I'll change the little post.
Smoking is a selfishness meter, the more you smoke, the more selfish you are.
Uranium miners (radon exposure) who smoke less than 1/2 pack a day have less lung cancer than nonsmoking uranium miners.
Also smokers have a lower incidence of breast cancer, MS, and Lou Gehrigs disease.
So smoking is smart?
You own yourself, you have a right to be as stupid as you want.
A vast conspiracy against a cure for cancer is one of the most bizarre of all conspiracy theories.
I reiterate. We would all be better off if the money which has been pissed away trying to convince people of the obvious,to wit: 'that cigarettes are bad for you', had been, was being, and would be in the future, spent on basic research into curing cancer.
Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.
Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer. Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.
My point is simple. We can fund fundamental research into the disease or waste fortunes trying to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers.
We can find a cure which will benefit anyone and everyone who gets cancer, whatever the type or cause, or we can spend fortunes villifying people so we can write smug bromides on the internet.
Frankly, I view the latter as a tremendous waste.
You assume all the money spent in campaigns against smoking would go to a cure for cancer. Maybe but I doubt it. As for smoking, just my humble opinion but it is a dirty foolish addictive and unhealthy habity. It always made me laugh that there was a scientific debate over whether constantly inhaling smoke into your lungs was unhealthy. Duh.
You enjoy it, that's ok with me, but in my opinion it will be a good thing if smoking becomes a thing of the past.
First I haeard of Apoptosis was discovering the Cellpathways company while searching the Web for help with my wife's treatment of advanced breast cancer.....prior to 2000.
Our Ocologists wasn't convinced there was a treatment with their products ... FDA never did approve it.
I didn't miss it, I just have no reason to think that your OPINION is correct. I happen to think that many, many young people have actually taken the warnings to heart and avoided starting a terrible habit. I readily concede that many others have not.
Maybe you feel safe from cancer as a nonsmoker or as someone who is never around smoke from cigarettes. I am happy for you.
I do not, so much for that. Safer? As in "not as likely to have the same health issues as smokers",,,maybe. But I was a heavy smoker for a long time and do not have any illusions that I quit soon enough or that I am safe now even though I quit 18 years ago. I also am not self-righteous or a "reformed whore". I am not a smoking Nazi, I regularly go to places where people smoke. But if you care about yourself, your health, your family,,,,it is a stupid thing to do. I was stupid, now I am less stupid.
Tremendous numbers of people who have never smoked have died of cancer.
You are rationalizing your habit, not making logical arguments.
Many of them before tobacco was introduced to Europeans. When tobacco is gone people will still get cancer. All sorts of cancer, not just lung cancer.
Ya think????? Lung cancer rates are higher among smokers, period. I have never heard anyone make the case that it would disappear or wouldn't exist in the absence of smoking. So you just made a classic straw-man argument.
No one called anyone the names you cited or vilified anyone so the same applies, Straw-man.
It's not evil to smoke, just stupid, and selfish. You aren't a villain, you are a dummy.
And the lung cancer is just one health issue, maybe the least. But it's just the most terrifying to most people who understand that 85% of all lung cancer is metastatic at the time of discovery. That is almost always a death sentence.
How many years are we talking for it to be a treatment once it's proven to be safe?
Have you seen any real cures? The 'cures' being offered are properly described as 'managed care'... another cute way to keep the money coming in from patients and their insurance companies.
In this regard, I do not hold much hope of the US curing these types of problems in the future. In the past, we would have. But since the 90s, its been about 'managing' the 'problem' instead of solving it. The medical field, thanks to HMOs, has turned into a bunch of parasites... which is exactly what Hilary? wants.. thereby 'granting' us proper health care, under her new 'health plan'... which would be controlled by Etna, of course.
For a real cure to real diseases, I expect them to come from countries like China, where profit is not the motivating factor. (this ought to get me flamed) With 2b+ people, its in their best interest to solve the major health problems in order to drop their costs. Of course, noone says they won't charge the rest of the world for the cure.. but at least it will work.
Rule #2: You cannot change rule # 1.
sw
Communist countries are notorious for considering their people expendable, so there is no reason to believe the communist rulers will put workers' health above a good cruise missile and the chance to reduce over population.
You say we would have cured cancer in the old days - but we didn't. Still, you are correct that the profit motive can have an insidious effect. For example, the pharma industry will not go down certain research roads unless they can hope to turn a profit in X years. And I wouldn't completely put it past them to hide a cure that would render their market obsolete.
I enjoy smoking - and drinking - and marbalized steaks - and driving fast - and climbing up mountains at 5:00 AM to sit in tree stands when its 0 degrees.
Having said that, my consumption of cigarettes is 1 or 2 packs a month - I seldom drink during the week, and that steak is not too many times a year.
Moderation - everything in moderation.
"to make 'nicotine niggers' out of smokers."
Don't you know that every generation needs its sub-humans to pick on?
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.