Posted on 11/12/2007 6:51:35 AM PST by fanfan
According to three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India, writing in the journal Medical Hypotheses, giving up smoking can kill you. Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya, and Jairaj Kumar were "struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most, cases."
In 182 of the 312 cases they had treated, an habitual smoker of at least a pack a day, for at least a quarter-century, had developed lung cancer shortly after he gave up smoking.
They surmised a biological mechanism protects smokers against cancer, which is strengthened by years of determined smoking. When the smoker quits, "a surge and spurt in re-activation of bodily healing and repair mechanisms of chronic smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia is induced and spurred by an abrupt discontinuation of habit," and "goes awry, triggering uncontrolled cell division and tumour genesis."
An evolutionary argument could support this hypothesis. Man is the only animal who cooks his food, and thousands of generations of our ancestors, pent up in smoke-filled caves, could easily account for this biological mechanism.
Since the findings of Kumar, Mallya, and Kumar coincide with my own medical hypothesis, based on my own anecdotal evidence, I hasten to embrace them. Several deceased friends and family, starting with my paternal grandfather, perished shortly after they quit smoking -- not only from lung cancer, but from other causes ranging from previously undiagnosed heart disease to industrial accident.
The same general principle would apply: that a body long accustomed to a (frankly addictive) substance, goes haywire when the substance is removed. In the good old days, people instinctively understood things like that, without the need for medical research. And it was inconceivable that, for instance, hospitals would prevent patients from smoking, who were already medically challenged on other fronts.
Other medical literature has documented other risks of non-smoking, that include neurotic depression, violent irritability, and obscene weight gain. But these tend to be discounted because they lead to death only indirectly.
Likewise, indirect evidence for the dangers of not smoking comes from the 150th anniversary number of Atlantic magazine. P.J. O'Rourke points to (actual, serious) U.S. historical statistics showing that, in the period 1973-94, annual per capita consumption of cigarettes fell from 4,148 to 2,493. In the same period, the incidence of lung and bronchial cancer rose from 42.5 to 57.1 cases per 100,000 population.
In the past I have flagged UN statistics showing that life expectancy was nicely proportional to tobacco consumption, internationally -- so that, for example, Japan and South Korea were respectively first and second in both life expectancy and tobacco consumption. The lowest tobacco consumption was in Third World countries, where we also found some of the shortest life expectancies.
I think we could also find historical statistics showing there is a reliable, worldwide relationship between rising tobacco consumption, and rising life expectancy, nation by nation, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
As Al Gore likes to say, "the science is irrefutable."
The weakness in that last statement being, that there is no such thing as irrefutable science. There is nothing in the whole history of science that is not tentative. And while, in astronomy, I remain convinced that the Earth revolves around the sun, I would not put all my money even on that proposition, but, given attractively long odds, reserve a penny bet on the sun going round the Earth.
If my reader is planning to give up smoking in the face of what I report, then courage to him, and I will avoid saying, "Go ahead, make my day." I am not in the pay of the tobacco lobby -- on the contrary, I seem to be paying them -- and am in principle indifferent to what substances others decide to use or abuse. My dander rises only when they try to interfere with my own freedom, through the childish, petty, and essentially totalitarian public campaigns against harmless smokers -- buttressed by scientific claims weaker than the above.
There is one more hypothesis with which I would like to leave my reader. It is that the kind of quack "science" that was used to ban smoking has now mutated into the kind that is used to flog global warming. It should have been resisted then; it should certainly be resisted now.
Great resource addresses that topic....
http://www.msnusers.com/AskJoel/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=608&LastModified=4675621463529832788
Agree with your “addict” perspective, as that is what it is, a nicotine addiction.
http://www.whyquit.com/
smokers...read it and be free!
I've got a 14th: Permanent Menstrual Syndrome
It was bad enough when my wife went through the well known symptoms once a month, but when she hit menopause, I found out what hell was like. ;o)
Definition of junk science: Stuff I disagree with.
It is certainly true that because she smoked she developed lung cancer. But this article generates serious questions that maybe you should be "managing" cessation of smoking. For example, would it be better to quit gradually, say over 6 months or a year, than to abruptly quit in order to avoid what might be a kind of "system shock" that may trigger cancer.
And my wife quit smoking 3 months ago and I'm wondering now if that was a good idea rather than to just cut down and then gradually quit to avoid a system shock.
Actually many of the Native American brands are just that. There is a huge difference in the taste and aroma of those in comparison to a standard commercial brand such as Marlboro, the taste and smell of which I find funky.
This article does not even merit the term “Junk Science.” Instead it is pure nonsense with a sample size that is so small that it would be considered anecdotal.
At least with Junk Science the authors attempt to sift through significant amounts of research and pass a peer review.
This article was also being discussed on local talk radio this morning.
One fellow told the story of a bunch of men (in the US), who had worked with nitro-glycerin for years, and all died of heart attacks within 18 months of retiring. Apparently, their bodies had adapted to the exposure over the years, and when the exposure was lost, their bodies couldn’t adjust again so fast.
Has anyone else heard of this story?
Well, you can try it, and let us know. ;-)
THAT is VERY funny!!!!!!!!
The article doesn't say you should start, just that people who quit after smoking for more than 25 years have a higher rate of cancer than those that continued smoking.
Your welcome Joe.
Good luck FRiend.
:-)
Ping!
I wonder.
Fat is good for you, really.
Do you wear perfume?
Perfume always chokes me up.
LOL!
Thanks for posting that.
Interesting...
Certainly that's possible, except that, given the length of time my father smoked (probably closer to 50 years), it is probably statistically more probable that the disease would have become apparent while he was still smoking, not shortly thereafter. Also, my father didn't have breathing troubles or any other significant health problems. He was actually quite healthy for a 67 year-old.
It’s another one of those things that makes you go “hmmmmmm”.
My husband and I quit 17 years ago. Both doing well except he has diabetes. Maybe how heavy you smoked plays a big role.
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.