Colin Grainger posted this on Siegels blog today.

http://baabmallya.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/10/does-qu...er-by-ixedoc-and.htm

Does quitting smoking cause cancer? By Ixedoc and Baab Mallya
The sub specialty of Neurosurgery that interested me was Neurosurgical Oncology, study of brain and spinal tumors. What better place to do that than at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. I was distressed by the sheer number of cancer
24 Oct 06 16:49:20 PM - 852 Views | comments rss:

Tags: smoking lung Cancer

The sub specialty of Neurosurgery that interested me was Neurosurgical Oncology, study of brain and spinal tumors. What better place to do that than at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. I was distressed by the sheer number of cancer cases of all types.

Soon after I started my Fellowship as I was examining a patient, he said “doc I used to smoke but gave it up six months ago, now they tell me I have lung cancer”. I never paid much attention to that remark until fourth patient remarked similarly that she had quit smoking few months back and now she has lung cancer.

It was at Sloan-Kettering for the first time the association between smoking and lung cancer was identified. Being a smoker myself, I was surprised at the unusual remarks these patients were making and decided pay more attention to it.

From that day every single patient I saw with a brain tumor that had metastasized from lung, I kept a record as to their smoking pattern. Also made a notation as to if they had quit smoking, how long ago.

I even went to Thoracic Surgery ward and started screening patient charts, what I was noticing was a sinister pattern. Majority of patients with lung cancer were smokers who after several years of smoking had quit smoking.

What is the link here? After one stops smoking, the healing process that starts, doesn’t know when to stop?
~snip~ read rest on link - comment section too.

Could it also be that those smokers quit because something had, not really noticed by them, changed to make them want to quit (but was actually because of lung cancer)? (shortness of breath, food tasted differently, too tired to light a cigarette-something like that?)

Some years ago I ran into a guy I had known for years and noticed he was smoking. He had quit 5 years earlier. I remember we discussed the myth/theory/old wive's tale that quitting/starting back up wasn't supposed to be good for you. That's sort of along the lines of the article.....only different. LOL

Actually, I have wondered about this for a long time myself. I have known several people who died of lung cancer, and in every single case, they were either never-smokers, or ex-smokers. I have never known an active smoker who contracted lung cancer.

That's only apocryphal, I know. But it's always made me think.

I know a guy who quit in 1973, and now, at 86, has lung cancer. This is quite contrary to the old belief that once you're 15 years out, your risk is the same as a never-smoker. Eddie Rabbit, the country singer, died of LC 10+ years after he quit, too.......

It is my belief that as we age we are more prone to consult the medical profession and act on their advice. I believe the result is the number of middle age and older citizens to become sick after acting on medical advice. They make drastic changes to their diet, exercise, drinking habits, and start taking daily regimes of prescribed drugs. As drug interactions begin, more drugs are taken to counter those reactions which increases their problems.

Their bodies are sent thru hell, is it any wonder they then succumb to some other new condition?

Also, remember these are the same people we elect to office.

Yeah, except the Elected Ones have absolutely superb medical care--the best of the best--and they receive it for life.

You probably won't see any bad drug interactions or nosocomial infections among our congresscritters. They are treated in the finest hospitals in the world, and have entire teams of doctors propping up their sagging physiques. Probably, each has a physician responsible just for periodically reviewing his or her meds. That's a specialty in itself.

Added in Edit: Oh, and incidentally, congresscritters can smoke in their own offices. Sweet, huh?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Robert A Cook,

My representative in Congress, Julia Carson, has been on sick leave for about a year here at home.

She has been enjoying poor health for a couple of terms. She always seems to rally when up for re-election though.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
It is my belief that as we age we are more prone to consult the medical profession and act on their advice. I believe the result is the number of middle age and older citizens to become sick after acting on medical advice. They make drastic changes to their diet...

Several large studies confirm your belief. The groups in the studies that tried lowering their cholesterol, etc, had a higher death rate.

Perhaps this is a topic for a different thread, but I've often suspected that health faddism (eggs are good/eggs are bad; cholesterol is a killer/cholesterol doesn't matter; slender is healthy/plump is healthy; margarine is safer than butter/margarine is a deadly transfat; etc.) is really just a method of keeping us off-balance, paying close attention, and responding to social control. I suspect the same thing about the recent, pointless changes in the dates that Daylight Savings Time takes effect (and the practice of observing Daylight Savings Time at all, for that matter).

Con men use this technique all the time. First you get the mark to listen and respond. After you have him listening and responding, it isn't much of a step to have him believing, and marching into Western Union to wire away his money on a regular basis.

The messages themselves aren't really what's important. Keeping the sheep moving as an attentive, obedient flock is.

The recent phenomenon of people turning away from the Mainstream Media obviously has the Powers-That-Be extremely concerned. Just a couple of weeks ago, I filled out an Arbitron diary. It was easy: "Monday - did not listen; Tuesday - did not listen; Wednesday - did not listen; and so on.

When an Arbitron representative first contacted me, I told him, "I don't listen to radio. I don't watch television, or read American newspapers either. I get my news from a variety of international sources."

"Good. We want to know that," he said.

I had fun with the Arbitron diary's "COMMENTS" section.

Hey Robert, sounds like you've been reading my notes on this Manipulated society we live in. ~Joke~

But seriously, the good news is more and more people are realizing this.

On the subject of stopping tobacco and then getting cancer, in my view, it's pretty simple.

Contrary to what the Dis-info experts are saying, tobacco is simply an ancient healing herb. You stop smoking it, you drastically start losing the benefits. (It seems even with all the carniogens added IE: in the cig papers, in the tobacco, and using petroleum (lighter fluid) to light it.)

My conclusion is Cancer comes from all the intense pollution and chemicals unleashed in modern society (including the drinking water), and tobacco is able to ward of and clear the body from these toxins.

After I jot this down here, I'm writing a note to Ixedoc and Baab Mallya and will give them by Blunt views on how deep the Manipulations of society go. Whether he will get it or not should be interesting to see.

quote:

On the subject of stopping tobacco and then getting cancer, in my view, it's pretty simple.

Contrary to what the Dis-info experts are saying, tobacco is simply an ancient healing herb. You stop smoking it, you drastically start losing the benefits. (It seems even with all the carniogens added IE: in the cig papers, in the tobacco, and using petroleum (lighter fluid) to light it.)

My conclusion is Cancer comes from all the intense pollution and chemicals unleashed in modern society (including the drinking water), and tobacco is able to ward of and clear the body from these toxins.

THANK YOU! This is the conclusion I've come to, as well (mostly based on Nightlight's research on this forum and others). How many people have Big Tobacco Control and Big Health killed by "forcing" them to quit?

quote:

Originally posted by Robert A Cook:
Actually, I have wondered about this for a long time myself. I have known several people who died of lung cancer, and in every single case, they were either never-smokers, or ex-smokers. I have never known an active smoker who contracted lung cancer.

That's only apocryphal, I know. But it's always made me think.

This is a new study that runs along the same thoughts of this discussion. Thought i'd share it.
Source: Ottawa (Ont) Citizen (ca), 2007-10-28
Author: David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen

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, a 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 tumor genesis." . . .

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 . . .

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. . . .

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.
Full text of article
Also See: http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330958765-111765,00.html
__._,_.___