"If everyone stopped using tobacco, lung cancer could be nearly wiped out."

Dana
0 Recommendations

I know we've discussed this many times, but it's a hopeless battle when leading cancer centers put the following statement on their website:

"Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women. Quitting smoking, or not starting at all, is by far the best way to prevent lung cancer. Smoking tobacco accounts for more than eight out of 10 lung cancer cases. If everyone stopped using tobacco, lung cancer could be nearly wiped out (American Cancer Society)."

I LOVE the hospital, but was sooooooo disappointed to read this on their website.

For more on what they say, here's the link:
http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused/display.cfm?id=9352d92c-eabd -422f-8d86a5d5221d26d0&method=displayfull


(Just FYI, so you know who I am, I switched pictures from the black dog with his tongue hanging out to the new picture of me and my hubby.)

:o)
Dana

56 replies

peyz33

OMG - I could vomit already - not this again.................

D1

Dana,
First, I love your new pic.
Second, I have to disagree with you. I think not smoking can prevent many, many new lung and other cancers, and it's imperative to help and protect these people. That has nothing to do with offering wonderful, nurturing care to all those who already have lung cancer whether they smoked or not. No one is into guilt or blame....but many are into denial. In addition to lung cancer, my husband has other health issues, almost every one of them is due to his having smoked 2 packs a day for almost 40 yrs. I think heart disease, bladder cancer, lung cancer & macular degeneration could all be drastically reduced if smoking were outlawed. And, none of us knows the impact secondary smoke from our family members, colleagues and strangers has had on us all. It's just one more area where the gov't has dropped the ball. But, educating people to the very real dangers of smoking is critical to everyone's good health. I commend those who tell the truth in an effort to save lives.

bayrealtor

Never give up this battle.

Bill & Cathy

LTLCS

Okay Karen, Your not the only throwing up! Gag me with a spoon!

It's up to US to educate these idiots! LOL!

The American Lung Association says RADON is the number 2 cause of LUNG CANCER!

FOZ

I would agree NO ONE DESERVES LUNG CANCER,
but that does not mean we should not continue to educate our communities about the dangers of smoking. I smoked for 13 years before I quit, My father for 30 years. I wished we had never started.
I certainly educated my son and encouraged him never to smoke when he was growing up and am thankful that he never did. I would think prevention is just as important as early detection.

Dana

Ramona

OMG - I could vomit already - not this again.................

simplyklb

There are many carcinogens in our environment. There's also a genetic component. The government just does not allocate enough for research into lung cancer. It's not as cut and dry as people think it is.

Kristi

Dana

I know, I know - gag me with a spoon. We have beaten this dead horse so many times. But I just couldn't it was posted on the website of such a prominent cancer hospital.

D1, (I mean no offense to you. I respect & care about you and am only venting frustration with "the system")

I certainly agree that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women and quitting smoking, or not starting at all, is by far the best way to prevent lung cancer. I also realize that we should not deny the deadly nature of cigarettes and need to get this information out.

But when they say, "If everyone stopped using tobacco, lung cancer could be nearly wiped out" - well it simply is NOT true. And it is a very dangerous statement because it lulls never smokers and people that haven't been around second hand smoke into a false sense of security.

The promise of "nearly wiped out" becomes a relative term. It's meaningless to many. But to the people who still get lung cancer (according to them it would be very few, but we all know it would still be 10's of thousands) those words would help "put the nail in the coffin". If they don't fund it now with 160,000 dieing from it, how much funding will they give when "very few" people have it because it's "nearly wiped out."

The statement, the way they wrote it, basically says that smoking causes almost every lung cancer. It simply supports the stigma and justifies the lack of funding.

Sad, sad, sad
~Dana

peyz33

Connie - you're BEAUTIFUL!!!!! So - that duck sound.....is because my left lung has taken over my entire chest cavity and my trachia is not a slit and not a hole- lol - but I'm fine - surgeon says I will always sound like a duck though...so long as I don't look like one I;'m ok....
Karen

peyz33

R- you making fun of me - lol

Ramona

peyz33
Absolutely not! I totally agree with you.
R

mickyinko

The governments of the world tell us that we have to give up, but on the other hand where would society be without tobacco related jobs and where would the goverments be without the income derived from taxes on cigarettes. Unfortunately, we as a democratic society have put ourselves into the awful position of making that choice and no one is game enough to take that MOTHER on. It's a little similar to the car industry right now, if they don't get a bail out 12% of Americans will lose their jobs, if they do get it, it puts a huge financial burden on future tax payers. what a place to be< stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Micky

Nitatx

and of course you all know that the government is still subsidizing tobacco growers.....while telling us not to smoke.

Joycen

Dr. James Mulshine who was the NCI lung cancer guy for years stated that (paraphrasing) "even if all smoking stopped tomorrow, we would not see a significant decrease in lung cancer FOR DECADES."
So do we just write off those millions of people???

The point is that smoking needs to be fought on behalf of the multitude of diseases linked to it. Lung cancer cannot be the scapegoat. Stigmatizing and ignoring lung cancer in order to stop people from smoking, is the perfect example where the end does not justify the means.

Additionally (and to my perspective more disturbing), note that the hospital did not originate the statement - it came from the American Cancer Society. It is a perfect example of their attitude toward lung cancer over the last thirty years as people continue to die. And this is the default organization most people turn to when thinking lung cancer....

Dana

Well put, Joycen.

Would you mind explaining what you mean about the ACS. I am soooo nieve. I am just now beginning to learn that they may not be on our side. I'm open to hearing what anybody has to say about it.

Thank you,
Dana

Joycen

For decades, ACS and other major organizations who have had the ear of the American public and legislators have insisted that the way to deal with lung cancer is simply to stop people from smoking. The other critical components of defeating the disease - early detection and better treatment - have been largely ignored.

The American Cancer Society is fully aware of the severe underfunding of lung cancer research and its link to the stigma of smoking. Yet they continue to insist that lung cancer is all about smoking. Just get people to quit. Period. Problem solved.

They continue to pound the statistic of "lung cancer is 85% tobacco related" which reinforces the stigma and blame, without telling people the number includes former smokers, many who quit decades before.

They refuse to support early detection, deferring to a research study of CT scans (using very outdated equipment) compared to X-rays - which has been the subject of significant criticism and won't even be completed for another year. What of all those we know are at high risk, who will not receive an early stage diagnosis because they are unaware and not given the option of deciding if they want to be screened for the disease. How many will die when they are diagnosed far too late?

Ask ACS how much of the tobacco tax increases they have introduced or supported included significant funding directed solely to lung cancer research (not including tobacco control). How much of their budget goes to the cancer responsible for one of every three cancer deaths?

The survival rate of lung cancer has remained largely unchanged over the same time that that of other major cancers has skyrocketed. We must hold those organizations who were in a position to effect change accountable for the lack of progress.

I will never forget talking to an ACS representative while my nonsmoking Stage IV husband sat next to me struggling with the effects of his treatment. This person told me, "we have to put our money where we get the most bang for our bucks, and that is in tobacco control." I told him that he had just written off my husband and all the others who had or would have lung cancer.

Yes, wipe tobacco off the face of the earth, but do not sacrifice lives needlessly in the process.

charlie44

AS HANK WILLIAMS JR WOULD SAY---LET'S L[GHT UP AND THEN MOVE ON---I DON'T HANK WOULDA DONE IT THIS A WAY----CHARLIE 44

FOZ

Joycen,
Thanks for the eye opener about ACS

Dana

Cognachai

If only Sir Walter Raleigh had brought back cannabis plants from the U.S. instead of tobacco, life might be so much better!!!

Excuse my flippant dig - I believe that any publicity is good publicity, even if the aim is not 100% accurate but it will take years to slowly "strangle" the tobacco companies. Let's face it, on the positive side there are the warnings on the packets, bans on advertising (Formula I will never be the same!!!) and more and more bans on smoking in public places. I feel these first steps and the continuing battle by non-smokers (and doctors?) will eventually lead to complete tobacco bans in 'civilised' countries.

We all live in hope ....

Cognachai

cosmogal_7

Well, I for one happen to be really anti tobacco. Maybe because I have lost too many of those I love to the effects of smoking. However, there is more than just lung cancer due to smoking. So I agree the stigma has to go. Smoking has to go. Period. I think too many smokers though still put the blame elsewhere and try to not blame smoking as a cause until they are afflicted with lung cancer or some other disease that is caused by it. I get tired of hearing from smokers that they have to die from something or they know someone who never got anything from smoking and they lived to ninety. My parents always blamed stress at the moment as a reason not to quit. Give me a break! When is life not stressful? I have been trying to fight smoking and always meet resistance from those who I need to reach out to. Its just frustrating. So I can see where the ACS wants them to still believe that its that bad cause really it is. Smoking is a cause of so many diseases and could be preventable. You can be mad or you can understand that prevention IS the way to go as well and funding and finding a cure. The problem is, is that people are frustrated with having smoking linked to lung cancer because people have less sympathy. Personally I have no sympathy for those who refuse to listen to the facts and the fact is that it does cause useless deaths each year. Why would anyone not think that losing my mom to lung cancer because of her smoking that I would not be mad? Yes I am the angriest I have ever been in my life!!! I am so mad that I want to fight on her behalf to get everyone involved in the dangers of smoking. I am so angry that if those cigarette companys started to lose millions of dollars cause of a significant drop in sales, and people lost thier jobs over it, I would be exstatic! I could care less. Cause that would mean so many family members would not be losing another loved one! There will be other jobs.
Sure not all lung cancers are caused by smoking but there sure is alot them. I still think we need the funding for sure. But you are still going to have those who are going to think if we find a cure or better treatment that people will still light up cause their attitude will be, well if I get it, then they can just treat it. It will just lead to an attitude that quitting is not an option. Its like telling a person now who is overweight not to lose weight cause they will just treat the diseases cause by obesity as they appear. Its the same thing. People are just tired of the laxxed attitude people have about their health. Millions of dollars spent and no one is listening to the advice or heads the warnings to quit or lose weight till its too late. Okay I am getting off my soapbox now. Sorry to vent.
Paula

Add to the discussion

New user? Join here.
Forgot password?
Keep me signed in on this computer until I sign out

Search

Find information and discussion about health topics in 346,733 posts by members like yourself. Learn more...

Join

Join safe, secure groups sponsored by trusted organizations that care about your health. Learn more...

Connect

Connect with 87,407 members and make friends who share your interests, learn about conditions and treatments, find support and more. Learn more...

You