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.
While that may or may not be true, it is a proven fact that Liberalism can, and will, kill you and as many others as it possibly can.
I'll keep my cigs, thank you very much.
Anti-smokers: by the way, mind your own business and you won't be minding mine.
If you are younger than 62 (my age) you are still a kid. Using the same reasoning, everyone over 62 is old.
These numbers change once a year.
“Do you wear perfume?”
Nope. Aviod all scented products. They give me sneezing fits.
“The only two people I know personally who got lung cancer never smoked at all.”
I knew 4 that never smoked and one that did. I probably know 15 that died of any cancer and none smoked.
“My hypothesis is that my body produces more white blood cells than normal in order to get rid of the smoke.”
My earlier post about uranium miners having less cancer if they smoked moderately was from an article that hypothesized that smoking up to 10 cigarettes a day did no harm and to the contrary, increased the thickness of the mucous lining and prevented the radon particles from implanting in the lung tissue.
My husbands heart Dr. told him NOT to quit smoking because of the stress level of quiting smoking.
Our pastors mother never smoked a cigarette in her life and just passed away from COPD.
Well said!
There’s one thing apparent from the thread, even though is anecdotal, and that’s that sudden changes of any kind seem to increase stress on the body, whether we know it or not, that can often be fatal.
Your body can’t distinguish between sudden change for the good or bad, it just reacts.
Good thing to keep in mind.
Antigens are often proteins but not always. Non protein molecules called haptens can bind with larger molecules and create an allergic response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapten
However, an asthma attack is an asthma attack regardless of the cause. Treatment may vary but the discomfort and symptoms are the same and not being able to breathe because of airway restriction is not only not pleasant, but downright scary. You know that it's only minutes you have without air and asthma CAN kill.
This allergic/asthmatic person cannot handle any other smoke and seeing it isn't the issue. If I'm upwind, I'm fine.
I've often encountered the callous condescending attitude expressed in this post and for that reason, don't give a rip about someone whining about being restricted in where they are allowed to smoke.
Cigarette smoke and smokers give people with miserable lives an excuse to believe they are morally superior to someone else. They are not happy people and sad to say the only joy they get in life is to try and make other people miserable.
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
My father quit and twenty years later died of lung cancer. I hate these boorish ads telling people to quit smoking or die.
Thanks for the ping!
Let’s say I opened a bar for smokers and those who don’t mind smoking, post it clearly and advertise it as such. Why does your ilk come in and demand we stop smoking in it?
I worked in the Operating Room at a hospital in Sacramento in the late 60’s. Every time the Doctor’s locker room door (inside the OR suite) opened.... (into corridor leading to the OR’s,) huge,billowing clouds of cigarette smoke would flow out into the corridor. And yes, doctors did smoke in patients rooms, cafeteria, lobby, emergency room as did nurses and techs.
Stop smoking *BEFORE* it damages your lung tissue? Why didn’t someone think of this before?
LOL!
LOL, true.
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.