tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post1070174560488707613..comments2024-02-06T07:57:54.467+00:00Comments on underdogs bite upwards: The Ban PlanLeg-ironhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04932361799889315359noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-53140252778706364512010-01-04T01:46:51.319+00:002010-01-04T01:46:51.319+00:00LI it is a Righteous manual!! Strictly used for b...LI it is a Righteous manual!! Strictly used for brainwashing techniques I'm told.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-91713838877693364782010-01-03T22:58:55.108+00:002010-01-03T22:58:55.108+00:00PS: One "web-literate physician" dispute...PS: One <a href="http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm" rel="nofollow">"web-literate physician" disputes that smoking causes lung cancer</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-21047588944406165072010-01-03T22:52:23.640+00:002010-01-03T22:52:23.640+00:00Let's hope this battery ban leads to cottage i...Let's hope this battery ban leads to cottage industries springing up with innovative, non-'toxic' components.<br /><br />As for cancer, some doctors believe that we all have cancerous cells, but that they are 'activated' when the body's pH becomes too acidic. Modern diets are notoriously acidic. <br /><br />Hence, many allegedly successful cancer treatments are alkaline.<br /><br />Alkaline bicarbonate of soda is one such treatment - said to help get rid of hangovers, too. I've not tried this yet!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-32081944634340543162010-01-03T19:15:49.839+00:002010-01-03T19:15:49.839+00:00LI,
Love your post (as usual), right up to the po...LI,<br /><br />Love your post (as usual), right up to the point where you state that "no other cause [of lung cancer] is investigated any more". Not really sure this is true; for example, a quick search for 'pathophysiology lung cancer' on PubMed just pulled up 6,103 hits (yes, I know a lot of these will be irrelevant, but you get my point I hope?).<br /><br />As 'anonymous' has pointed out, only a tiny proportion of non-elderly patients gets lung cancer - in line with your blog, it is troubling that this fact is so little known (and that smoking is always assumed to be the cause in the vast majority of cases).<br /><br />Just for completeness, 'lung cancer' is obviously an umbrella term for a number of related cancers (http://bit.ly/6CI1Ge). Interestingly enough, it seems some of these types of lung cancer (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma) are more prevalent in smokers than others.<br /><br />Anyway, I digress (apologies). I look forward to the almost inevitable article on BBC Online extolling the evils of batteries with anticipation...Manuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10668102624745355071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-58503241695716831982010-01-03T14:49:32.316+00:002010-01-03T14:49:32.316+00:00Subrosa - that pdf reads like a Righteous manual!
...Subrosa - that pdf reads like a Righteous manual!<br /><br />Anonymous - I'm not saying that smoking isn't linked to lung cancer. The point I was trying to make is that smoking is now seen as the only cause, and it's not. It's perfectly possible to be a smoker, but get lung cancer from another cause unconnected to smoking. Those other causes are never investigated. You have lung cancer and you smoke, therefore one has caused the other. No question.<br /><br />Meanwhile there could be an easily prevented cause out there, aside from smoking, that's being ignored.<br /><br />As you say, the actual incidence is low overall so it's not easy to make a definitive link to anything else, but I'll look into what I can find. Epidemiology is not my field at all so it won't be quick.Leg-ironhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04932361799889315359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-62685620446525152932010-01-03T12:23:22.019+00:002010-01-03T12:23:22.019+00:00LI,
I've actually investigated the lung cance...LI,<br /><br />I've actually investigated the lung cancer angle extensively (ex-smoker, but pro-smoking choice and a "jail-the-anti's" advocate). I wish that, as a scientist, you'd change your emphasis on this one.<br /><br />I'm usually highly sceptical of medical epidemiology - it's only worthwhile in indicating extremes, like cholera epidemics. Things which reveal large associations (statistically), rather than weak ones.<br /><br />Well, smoking IS strongly associated with lung cancer (at a rate of about 7 or 8 to 1, versus lifetime non-smokers). However, what is NEVER mentioned are two things.<br /><br />First, the average lung cancer patient is +70yrs. Sure, the odd person gets it in their 50's, but nobody tells you how amazingly unusual that is.<br /><br />Second, even though it normally happens in older people, less than 1% of non-smokers (of whom, 100% do eventually die) contract lung cancer. So, even at 7 or 8 times non-smokers' rates, only 7% or 8% of smokers contract lung cancer.<br /><br />So, here are the facts: around 93% of smokers will NOT contract lung cancer, and most of them (about 97% of smokers) will NOT contract lung cancer until they are quite elderly.<br /><br />ALL smokers will eventually die.<br />ALL non-smokers will eventually die.<br /><br />You, LI, as a scientist should spend more time examing the scientific, rather than just the moral/ethical argument, in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-32421633552416785792010-01-03T03:14:56.899+00:002010-01-03T03:14:56.899+00:00Ah LI, I see you've been reading this:
http:/...Ah LI, I see you've been reading this:<br /><br />http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdfsubrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170981338945747646.post-72534177629267727042010-01-03T03:07:35.210+00:002010-01-03T03:07:35.210+00:00As I suggested on Ambush Predators post re batteri...As I suggested on Ambush Predators post re batteries. How long before they implement the ban by making it illegal for shops to sell you betteries unless you bring back an equal number of old dead leaky ones?<br /><br />With luck the Righteous will be getting a good kicking by mother earth herself as the ban on CO2 becomes self evidently absurd in the wake of the earth not getting hot as the warmongers fake science insists that it will. Chris Booker let rip yesterday as we head deeper into one of the coldet winters in 100 years.<br /><i>" hasn't the time come for us to stop treating the serial inaccuracy of Met Office forecasts as just a joke and see it for what it is – a national scandal? <br /></i>"<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6924898/The-Met-Office-gives-us-the-warmist-weather.htmlbannedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02406037760273820029noreply@blogger.com