Skip to comments.
Breath test to detect lung cancer
UK Press via Google News ^
| August 30, 2009
Posted on 08/31/2009 10:10:29 AM PDT by Schnucki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
To: T Minus Four
Well, rat's arse! ;^)
I spent a couple of hours searching the net about four years ago for statistics on smoking and cancer and came up with zip. Not the AMA, the AH&LA, the NHI or any government site. It was like deaths from legal abortions, no data.
41
posted on
08/31/2009 6:29:13 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
check out lungcancer.org and the lung cancer alliance.
42
posted on
08/31/2009 6:33:17 PM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(Don't be caught dead without Jesus!)
To: T Minus Four
You want me to do a blind search of those sites for information to support your statistics? I don’t think so.
43
posted on
08/31/2009 6:42:47 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
Oh good grief, I just thought you wanted more info. I didn’t know we were competing; I thought we were sharing info.
Shesh, they are probably all “damn statistics” anyway.
44
posted on
08/31/2009 8:13:03 PM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(Don't be caught dead without Jesus!)
To: T Minus Four
I’m sorry. I thought you were rebutting the statistics I posted and wanted me to do the research to support your argument. I’ll look over those sites and see if they have anything that I can use.
45
posted on
08/31/2009 8:18:17 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: T Minus Four
I see that lungcancer.org says that “Nearly 87% of all lung cancers in the United States are smoking-related.” They then go on to cite secondhand smoke as one of those related causes. As debunked as the ‘secondhand smoke causes cancer’ meme is that number isn’t of any use.
46
posted on
08/31/2009 8:22:12 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: T Minus Four
Alright, I have looked over both of those sites. Neither one has any statistics at all on what percentage of smokers contract lung cancer or what percentage of non-smokers do.
47
posted on
08/31/2009 8:30:15 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
I scanned a few sites and noticed that second-hand smoke was a recurring theme. I don’t know what to believe about that, and we don’t seem to hear much about that any more.
48
posted on
08/31/2009 8:46:22 PM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(Don't be caught dead without Jesus!)
To: T Minus Four
What I find interesting is the most basic statistics of all, which you know the government compiles data on, is not available.
49
posted on
08/31/2009 9:02:33 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
50
posted on
09/01/2009 8:02:56 AM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(Don't be caught dead without Jesus!)
To: T Minus Four
Thank you. You found a lot there. I know I searched NCI and NCHS in the past and didn't find nearly that much. They break it down in a number of different ways but only one stat comes close to what I was trying to give which would be 'lifetime risk' for smokers and non-smokers. They give a lifetime risk for everybody without separating smokers from non-smokers. Looks like it is almost 7% which is what I was giving for smokers.
"Based on rates from 2004-2006, 6.96% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 14 men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus during their lifetime."
I'm sure someone who knows how to read stats could get more out of their numbers. There is a pdf page of lifetime risk that is age-adjusted. That confuses me. Why (or how) would you 'age-adjust' a lifetime risk? That sounds counter-intuitive but I'm sure it makes sense to a statistician.
Thanks again. It is a lot more than I had found before. Bookmarked.
51
posted on
09/01/2009 10:58:13 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
You’re very welcome. This HAS made me a little uneasy though, having smoked for many years :-( I quit over 12 years ago but I guess you’re never completely safe.
52
posted on
09/01/2009 7:03:38 PM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(I'm all wee-weed up!)
To: Schnucki
The lung cancer biomarkers were found by comparing breath samples from 40 diagnosed patients and 56 healthy individuals. 96 people tested. Since when is a report like this considered as legitimate medical research?
53
posted on
09/01/2009 7:14:14 PM PDT
by
Jean S
To: T Minus Four
No, I don't suppose anyone is safe. Or at least no one knows who is and who isn't. It sounds like you have been a non-smoker long enough that the additional possible hazard has been repaired.
Don't worry ... stress isn't good for your health. ;-)
54
posted on
09/01/2009 7:56:58 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
To: TigersEye
It sure does feel good to be able to breathe and run and climb stairs and laugh hard and sleep well :-) Cheers my friend!
55
posted on
09/02/2009 5:58:30 AM PDT
by
T Minus Four
(I'm all wee-weed up!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson