Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Shorty
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:53 pm

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Shorty » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:17 pm

Here is a study in the news. I don't want any smokers around me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/healthussmoking
Smoking causes gene damage in minutes

"Those first few puffs on a cigarette can within minutes cause genetic damage linked to cancer, US scientists said in a study released Saturday. In fact, researchers said the "effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream," in findings described as a "stark warning" to those who smoke."

Bwis53
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6974
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:39 pm
Location: Bay Creek
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Bwis53 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:48 pm

Ira?

Carol
Forum Addict
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Carol » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:35 pm

Hecht is a fear-mongering fraud.

For the related PAH, benzo[a]pyrene, which is one of the most common polycyclic hydrocarbons produced by combustion, "[T]he food chain is the dominant pathway of human exposure, accounting for about 97% of the total daily intake of BaP. Inhalation and consumption of contaminated water are only minor pathways of human exposure [2% from air, and 1% from water]. The long-term average daily intake of BaP by the general population is estimated to be 2.2 micrograms (ug) per day. Cigarette smoking and indoor activities do not substantially increase human exposure to BaP relative to background levels of BaP present in the environment." And, "[A]verage smokers (i.e., individuals who smoke 20 cigarettes a day) are taking in an additional 780 ng of BaP daily, which means that smokers get an additional 16% BaP from smoking" [based on pre-1979 cigarettes, which contained about twice the quantity of BaP as newer low-tar cigarettes]. Also, the exposure from cooked beef (0.2 -24.1 ug/kg) is less than the exposure from leafy vegetables (7.0 - 48 ug/kg). And, this research was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Benzo-a-pyrene: Environmental partitioning and human exposure. H.A. Hattemer-Frey, C.C. Travis. Toxicology and Industrial Health 1991;7(3):141-157.)

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2060536048-6064.html

The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least a quarter of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And those criminals commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.html

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 22642
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:52 pm

Are you against the many government studies proving the health risks of smoking because, what is government when words have no meaning?

Just asking.

PopeyeTheSailorman
Forum Addict
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: 1348 Spaight Street Madison Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby PopeyeTheSailorman » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:54 pm

The facial benzobe(2)~ano carbon at the 24% asshroid ratio assrim petrozehine cum swallow collarry(2%) masturbatory correlates with the anal probeatoid treatment graphical saturation ass hat bobotoidazone crapatulalunazoid hydogen at a bent penis slant proportion of 1.2345 over 23.3333 per cent($%%~`) inverse ratio which flauates at the 100%(ut @ zema budweiser bubble theory) blurbing the depend pad dependacy Ratzo Rizzo medicated hydrocarbon fart virginal discharge influence squirting.

This is obvious except you corrupt criminal psychopaths have locked me up in this(56%##) insane asylum so you can capture my tissue matter for your sick scientific experiments.

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby gargantua » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:41 pm

PopeyeTheSailorman wrote:100% bubble blurbing the medicated fart virginal discharge influence squirting.


I blame Scott Walker.

Carol
Forum Addict
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Carol » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:36 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Are you against the many government studies proving the health risks of smoking because, what is government when words have no meaning?
Just asking.


How come all your so-called "government studies proving the health risks of smoking" are 1) based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignored the role of infection, and 2) claim that smoking causes the very same things that are known to be caused by infection? How about the latest Surgeon General report, which claims that smoking causes methylation of p16?

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.html

So, are you against the many studies proving that viruses, including human papillomaviruses, Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis viruses, and even Helicobacter pylori, all of which are known human carcinogens, all have mechanisms that methylate p16? Don't you think that someone ought to make sure the Surgeon General isn't falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection?

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3173
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby ilikebeans » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:56 am

Carol!

So good to see you're still around and kicking, or at least enough to type a few more paragraphs of your enlightening theories. Who'd thunk it, eh? I certainly would've lost that bet! Laugh out loud!

But honestly, I'm really quite glad you posted. You see, I'd forgotten about my annual donation to the American Lung Association, and here you come along like the saint you are and remind me. Gosh darn, you're a helluva gal.

So thanks very much, and I look forward to your continued service in the fight against lung cancer and smoking!

xoxo,
ilikebeans

Image

Carol
Forum Addict
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Carol » Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:07 am

ilikebeans wrote:Carol!

So good to see you're still around and kicking, or at least enough to type a few more paragraphs of your enlightening theories. Who'd thunk it, eh? I certainly would've lost that bet! Laugh out loud!

But honestly, I'm really quite glad you posted. You see, I'd forgotten about my annual donation to the American Lung Association, and here you come along like the saint you are and remind me. Gosh darn, you're a helluva gal.

So thanks very much, and I look forward to your continued service in the fight against lung cancer and smoking!

xoxo,
ilikebeans


As I said before, it's good to see you expending your own money to commit scientific fraud instead of them just stealing it (directly) from the taxpayers.

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3173
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby ilikebeans » Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:37 am

Psst, Carol-- Have you noticed that the cigarettes you buy are fairly expensive? Yes? Ever hear of tobacco taxes?

Since Wisconsin's per-pack tax rate is $2.52, that means that with every two cartons you buy, you've contributed about as much to the state (some of which is used for health care and smoking cessation programs) as I just did to the ALA.

Two cartons-- What is that, like, a weekend for you?

Carol
Forum Addict
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Carol » Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:45 am

ilikebeans wrote:Psst, Carol-- Have you noticed that the cigarettes you buy are fairly expensive? Yes? Ever hear of tobacco taxes?

Since Wisconsin's per-pack tax rate is $2.52, that means that with every two cartons you buy, you've contributed about as much to the state (some of which is used for health care and smoking cessation programs) as I just did to the ALA.

Two cartons-- What is that, like, a weekend for you?


It just proves what a bunch of thieves you anti-smokers are, doesn't it.

PopeyeTheSailorman
Forum Addict
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:06 pm
Location: 1348 Spaight Street Madison Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby PopeyeTheSailorman » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:02 am

The eco skeletal structure of the jismotoydal[21ac] molecule is only 1020340894889038-2989485% more than what the average golf player gets from their intake from green leafy vegetables or applesauce (please note there is a .50 cent charge for substitutions.) the Mrs. Milfmyer study clearly demonstrates that a solution and vinegar and big hard black cock will reverse the effects of bacon and beer farts to a degree that was surprising given the carbon hydroxilized marbelization of the heffer squirtbizzle coke bottle evidentiary dictum.

Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Peanutbutter » Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:16 am

The kooks who say there is a conspiracy against tobacco are the same kooks who say there is a conspiracy against pot.

The CDC has proof that smoking either is unhealthy and deadly. The science is settled. Anyone who questions it is a wingnut with a political agenda.

Average Joe
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:33 am

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Average Joe » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:26 am

Peanutbutter wrote:The kooks who say there is a conspiracy against tobacco are the same kooks who say there is a conspiracy against pot.

The CDC has proof that smoking either is unhealthy and deadly.


Not all who are pro-pot smoke it, many eat it. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that eating pot is detrimental to health.

Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: Conspiracy to hide virus lung cancer role

Postby Peanutbutter » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:57 am

On April 8, 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) notified officials from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) in California about a group of preschool teachers with nausea, dizziness, headache, and numbness and tingling of fingertips after consumption of brownies purchased 3 days before from a sidewalk vendor. To characterize the neurologic symptoms and determine whether these symptoms were associated with ingestion of the brownies, the police and health departments launched a collaborative investigation. This report summarizes the results of that investigation, which detected cannabinoids in a recovered sample of the brownies. Two patients sought medical attention, and one patient's urine and serum tested positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH), a marijuana metabolite. The findings in this report demonstrate the utility of a collaborative investigation by public health and law enforcement.The findings also underscore the need to consider marijuana as a potential contaminant during foodborne illness investigations and the importance of identifying drug metabolites by testing of clinical specimens soon after symptom onset.

On the morning of April 7, 2009, a preschool teacher put brownies, which she had purchased on April 5, on a table in a break room to share with staff. The day before, she also had given two brownies to her adult son at home. Five preschool teachers (not including the teacher who had purchased the brownies) and the teacher's adult son were the only persons who ate the brownies. Each person ate only one brownie.

At approximately 1:30 p.m., the preschool director and the administrator noticed that one of the teachers suddenly looked drowsy and was complaining of drowsiness, ataxia, dizziness, shortness of breath, and numbness and tingling of the face, forehead, arms, and hands. When the director and administrator learned that the teacher who had shared the brownies had purchased them from a sidewalk vendor for a church fundraiser, they suspected the affected teacher's drowsiness was associated with her ingestion of the brownie 30 minutes before onset of symptoms

Two of the teachers sought medical attention at urgent-care facilities on the day of exposure: one was a breastfeeding mother, and the other had the most profound illness compared with the rest of the affected persons (illness that included cardiopulmonary symptoms). The latter was diagnosed with foodborne illness and was prescribed antibiotics. The breastfeeding mother nursed her infant at 9:00 a.m., approximately 90 minutes after eating the first half of her brownie.


Center for Disease Control

The CDC is a non-biased scientific organization. The people who say "Weed is harmless" are just stoners who want to get high without having to face the legal consequences.

Which side are you going to believe?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jman111 and 7 guests