Hi All: I just read a post that I can't get out of my head. I am so disturbed by it because not only did it basically say in a roundabout way that if we smoked we deserve lung cancer, but also blamed smokers for giving non-smokers lung cancer! We don't have enough to worry about by dealing with our cancer, we now are supposed to feel guilty because "we gave non-smokers cancer". Unfortunately the person doesn't know much about lung cancer yet comes on a lung cancer board to accuse us.
Back in March, I sent the below email to everyone in my address book. I am hoping it is still going around today, but who knows. If anyone wants to do the same, please feel free to use any or all of my email. Of course, I've learned a lot more about lung cancer since I sent this email, but I hope it still makes its point. It is long and at the end it has descriptions of the different types of lung cancer that I obtained from my Johns Hopkins oncologist.
PLEASE HELP ME SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT LUNG CANCER. LET’S HELP SAVE LIVES.
There are many cancers out there that kill people every day, yet lung cancer always seems to be “swept under the rug” because people believe that those who get lung cancer “did it to themselves”. This is NOT TRUE. There are many people out there who have never smoked in their lives, yet have been diagnosed with lung cancer. More and more young people, people in their 20''s, 30’s, and 40’s are being diagnosed each day with lung cancer. In 2007, there were over 1 million people diagnosed with this horrible disease. An oncologist at Johns Hopkins told me that most people who have lung cancer do not even get it from smoking.
I am a 50 year old healthy woman that was diagnosed with Stage IV inoperable adenocarcinoma lung cancer in January 2008. There were no symptoms except a lump on my neck. I first attributed this to stress. After a couple of weeks when it did not disappear, I went to the doctor. My primary care physician insisted that it was a muscle pull and wanted to wait a couple of weeks to watch it. I knew it was not a muscle pull and after numerous struggles with my physician to get her to order tests to determine what this lump could be, advanced stage IV lung cancer was discovered. My doctor called me on my cell phone and informed me over the phone of this news!
How did I get this? I don’t know. Do I deserve this? NO! Does anyone deserve this? NO! Lung cancer does not discriminate. It can hit anyone at anytime.
Since I’ve been diagnosed, I’ve met people on lung cancer discussion boards that come from all walks of life: marathon runners, vegetarians, aerobics instructors, young mothers and fathers, grandparents, brothers and sisters, all just like you and me. One woman whom I met through a discussion board was diagnosed in January of 2008 with lung cancer, and died two short months later. She was a 46 year-old mother of small children.
When a person dies of a heart attack, do we blame them for eating hamburgers? If a person gets shot on the street, do we blame them for being in an unsafe place? No. We don’t blame anyone with any other type of cancer for doing it to themselves. Why blame lung cancer victims? Whether we smoked or not is irrelevant. We have a terrible disease that nobody deserves.
Please help me get the facts out about lung cancer. Forward this email to everyone you know. Let’s get this horrible disease out in the open and make people aware that those of us who have it do not deserve it and did not bring it on ourselves. There are screenings for all kinds of cancer: breast, prostate, colon, cervical, etc., yet no screening for lung cancer. Why not? It’s too late for me, but we can spread the word about the facts of lung cancer and by doing this, maybe we can help other people get diagnosed early or even get people interested in finding a cure and save lives. If, by forwarding this email we save just one life, isn’t it worth it?
If you want to learn more about lung cancer, below is some information I obtained from Johns Hopkins Cancer Center.
I am signing this email with my name to show the seriousness of this email. Help stamp out this killer disease.
Susan Laurents
Centreville, VA
----------------------------------------------------
Lung Cancer Information (obtained by Oncologist at Johns Hopkins Cancer Center):
Lung cancer, in general, can be separated into two types: small cell and non-small cell lung cancer. Small cell lung cancer comprises approximately 15% of all lung cancer cases while non-small cell lung cancer comprises the remaining 85%.
Small cell lung cancer is highly aggressive, responds well to chemotherapy and radiation, but carries a very poor prognosis. Non-small lung cancer generally grows more slowly, responds less well to chemotherapy and radiation, but has a slightly better prognosis.
Non-small cell lung cancer can be divided into multiple sub-types. Squamous cell lung cancer is one of the subtypes. Most squamous cell lung cancer patients are active or former smokers. Squamous cell cancers tend to be locally aggressive and spread outside of the lungs much later in their course.
Adenocarcinomas of the lung tend to present along the periphery of the lungs and are seen in both smokers and non-smokers alike. Adenocarcinomas tend to spread through the blood stream to locations outside of the lungs earlier in their course of development than squamous cell lung cancer.
When putting together a plan for non-small cell lung cancer, the first thing to understand is how we stage lung cancer and how staging impacts our choice of treatment. In general we group lung cancer into four stages. To understand the staging, you first need to understand how lung cancer spreads. Spread of lung cancer develops through three mechanisms. First is growth of the tumor locally. Tumors as they grow expand in size and can grow into other structures that are near by. The second mechanism of spread is through the lymphatic system. The lymphatic system is part of the cleaning system of the body. White blood cells can move through this system to clear up infections. Unlike the blood system, the vessels in the lymph system carry liquid that is moving slowly. Generally when cancer cells get into the lymph system they involve the lymph nodes closest to the primary tumor first and continue down the lymph vessel involving more lymph nodes along the way. In the lung, there are lymph nodes within the lung as well as lymph nodes that are in the center of the chest around the heart, airways, and major blood vessels. The final way for cancer to spread is through the blood stream. When cancer cells get into the blood stream they can go anywhere blood goes and set up new sites of tumor in those places. These new tumor sites are called metastases. The most common sites for lung cancer to develop metastatic tumors are the opposite lung, liver, bones, adrenal glands, and brain.
Once you understand how lung cancer spreads, the staging system is straightforward. Stage I lung cancer is a solitary tumor in the lung. By definition, stage I tumors have no involvement of lymph nodes or distant spread. Stage I tumors are optimally treated with surgery with possible chemotherapy after resection. Stage II tumors are generally larger tumors. They also may involve local lymph nodes. These tumors are also optimally treated with surgery. We have conclusive evidence that patients with stage II lung cancer that has been resected benefit from chemotherapy after recovering from their surgery. Stage III tumors are more complicated. Stage III tumors involve the lymph nodes in the center of the chest, have multiple tumors in one lobe of the lung, or invade major structures such as the main airway, major blood vessels, or heart. Some of these tumors can be removed surgically, but most are treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation. Stage IV lung cancer patients have distant spread of the cancer. By definition this means the cancer has entered the blood stream and is setting up new sites.
When approaching stage IV lung cancer, the main treatment approach is chemotherapy. Surgery and radiation are both local treatments. Surgery only removes the cancer cells the surgeon can see. Radiation only damages the cancer cells that are in the path of the radiation beams. Chemotherapy is a systemic approach since it travels through the blood stream. Chemotherapy can affect not only tumors in the lungs but also tumors in the new sites that may be set up. The one place that chemotherapy has difficulty reaching is the brain. The brain is a protected site and many medications including chemotherapy cannot reach into the blood vessels of the brain. In stage IV or metastatic lung cancer, we generally recommend chemotherapy alone unless there is a specific problem that needs to be addressed such as spread to the brain, a painful site of spread to the bones, or tumor compressing an essential structure such as the blood vessels that go in and out of the heart and lungs or the main airways. In these scenarios we often use radiation to treat that local problem and then use chemotherapy for a systemic approach. Surgery generally does not offer any benefit.
Already a member? Sign in
Welcome to Inspire!
What - Inspire is a place where you can connect with people who share your health concerns and find information and advice in groups sponsored by organizations you know and trust.
Why - As a member you can use Inspire to let friends and family know how you're doing, contact others who share your health concerns, receive personalized updates and information about participating in surveys and clinical trials, and more.
How - Joining Inspire is completely free and usually takes less than a minute. Join now!
So Disturbed by a Post I Read
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 4, 2008 at 9:58 am · 121 replies
- In Non-small cell lung cancer - General
- Shared with the public
Explore topics in this discussion:
Exercise Cancer Surgery Back pain Shunting Bypass surgery Pneumonia Chemotherapy Tarceva Thyroid cancer Stress Asthma Heart disease Advil Uterine cancer Sleep apnea Emphysema Diabetes Chantix Breast cancer Taxotere Pain Liver cancer Heart attack Obesity Lung cancer
121 replies
- Oldest first
- Newest first
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 11:22 am
- Report post
I agree with Bev. It's not a smoker vs. non-smoker debate. It's how to get the word out that lung cancer affects everyone. Bev posted a link to a web movie that everyone should see. That would put the fear into the general public and maybe something could be done about it.
It is very true that smoking (and second hand smoke) does contribute to lung cancer, but only certain types of lung cancer. There are other types of lung cancer out there which a lot of us have, that have nothing to do with smoking. I think that is the point that needs to be brought to the general public, and I think that is what this whole discussion thread is about.
Susan
- By gonehiking
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 11:24 am
- Report post
Elly-Mae,
I know in the state where I live there are a couple of hot spots, and the cancer rates there are twice the national average.
Yes, I think that's another important point. I live in a rural area and almost every household on our road has had at least one if not both husband and wife die from cancer -- and now my husband has cancer and I had to have surgery 2 years ago because of really bad hyperplasia which my doctor said was as close to cancer as you can get.
My mom's neighbourhood is even more bizarre. Several streets where everyone and their pets seem to die from cancer. It's a nice neighbourhood, but there's a railway shunting yard where diesel locomotives used to sit idling for hours on end just a couple of blocks away. The site was decommissioned a few years ago, but apparently it's now considered to be so contaminated that it can't be used for anything now.
There are such environmentally hazardous hotspots in our midst just about everywhere in North America (and beyond). The more we get this kind of information out in the open for discussion, the sooner we'll get some answers about why the cancer rates (all cancers) are climbing so rapidly. Unfortunately, ignoring these truths will not make the reality of their impact go away.
bev
- By gonehiking
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 11:31 am
- Report post
Hi Susan,
I just started a new thread "Women and Lung Cancer" and posted a link to the movie so that more people might see it (not sure everyone will wade through all of our posts to get this far into the discussion!). (-:
bev
- By jr1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 12:36 pm
- Report post
Bev,
I have seen this doctor on other sites. Notice what the doctor states - sheTHINKS that estrogen could play a role in so many women getting lung cancer. Studies need to be done on this; I think it is reasonable to say that this could be a hugh discovery. The doctor states that her average patient is someone who smoked in college and quit when their children were young. So how many are non smokers? Only studies will reveal how this affects non smokers or smokers. The more research the better for all of us.
I could be completely wrong, but what I think angers non smokers is that they do not go around inflecting their second hand smoke on others. Unfortunately, there are a lot of smokers out there who have no regard for others around them. I came out of my onocologist office last week and sitting on the steps were three girls smoking. Now grant you there are two unrelated offices in this building, but wouldn't you think knowing that the majority of the building was being used for cancer patients they would have more sense. I also came out of a large medical imaging center and there right outside the front door was a girl smoking. No regard for others around her or that people were going in and out of this building with serious medical conditions. I think this is what gives smokers a bad name. I work with two girls that smoke and they are very considerate to go out back so no one will inhale their second hand smoke. 57% of the time a cigarette spends time burning in an ash tray rather than the person actually smoking it.
Janet
- By gonehiking
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 1:34 pm
- Report post
I think that is what bothers non smokers the most. Knowing that smokers around other people could be setting them up for a deadly disease.
Actually, the thing that bothers my husband and I THE MOST--and he grew up in a family that never had an ashtray in their house and worked in places which had banned smoking in the workplace -- and we live in Canada where no smoking in the workplace laws have existed for a considerable length of time -- is that he has, in all likelihood been subjected to industrial contamination that could easily have caused his disease... AND that we live in an area farmed by nursery sod operations that spray the crap out of all of their fields with 2-4D throughout summer. WE WERE HERE FIRST (have been here 30+ years on our farm) and the nursery sod farms came along about 15 years ago and bought out the dairy farms around us and turned them into sod operations. We should have taken a beating on our place and made a run for it a long long time ago... In the final analysis, it sure doesn't pay to work at a job where there are industrial pollutants that could jeopardize your health, and it also doesn't pay to remain in your house, no matter how much you love it, when your "neighbours" are sousing the surrounding fields with poison.
Compared to all of the above, a bit of cigarette smoking drifting by on the breeze seems rather inconsequential.
Anyhow, I don't think I have much more to say on this topic.
bev
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 1:51 pm
- Report post
Bev:
That's great. I sent the link to a lot of people I know (mostly non-smoking women). I am also going to send it to the 4 local broadcast stations here in Washington, DC - not sure if that will do any good or not. Thanks for sharing it.
Susan
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 2:17 pm
- Report post
Hi Janet:
I thought our goal was to stop the smoker vs. non-smoker discussion? Yes, there are inconsiderate smokers, but there are also inconsiderate drivers, inconsiderate parents with small children, inconsiderate people in general. Some people are just plain inconsiderate no matter what it is they are doing.
When I started this discussion it had nothing to do with smokers vs. non-smokers. It was basically to point out that I was upset by that other post, because this is a support discussion board for those of us dealing with lung cancer and I didn't feel that blaming people was very supportive (to say the least). I also wanted to share with all of you what I did when I found out that I had lung cancer to try to educate everyone I know about the disease because the information I sent out was also new to me. If I didn't know the facts about lung cancer and I had it, I was pretty sure my friends and family didn't know that much about lung cancer either.
I don't know how this got to a smoker vs. non-smoker debate, and everyone is entitled to express their thoughts, but this is not what I intended this post to be. All of us will always have our differing opinions on smoking and non-smoking. The only reason I started the original post was because I needed to vent about what I read, and I thought the second part of it would help.
Susan
- By jr1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 5:20 pm
- Report post
I knew that I was wasting my breath by trying to point out what I thought might be bothering non smokers. You all don't want to understand it. We ALL know Bev that there are other reasons non smokers get lung cancer besides second hand smoke, i.e., the environment, your own chemcial makeup, genetics, etc. I was trying to make you aware of what I have read on this web site, but none of you seem to want to acknowledge it. I still don't think some of these discussions are productive. We are all dealing with a lot of stress. I certainly am not trying to make anyone feel guilty. I voice an opinion and what do you get - people jumping down your throat. I don't call that positive communication in trying to build unity.
Why do you think people are afraid to voice their opinion. They come on the site and read the post but are afraid to share what is on their minds; they stay behind the scenes. I personnally did not read the post that seems to have upset so many people - so I guess I should not have entered into this discussion to begin with.
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm
- Report post
Janet (and everyone else):
I am so sorry I posted my original post. I really did not intend for there to be more hurt feelings than what I was feeling when I posted, nor did I intend to start any kind of battle. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion and no one should be afraid to post here. I'm not really sure how my original post incited these types of feelings, because it was not intended to do so. All I wanted to say to the original poster of, in my opinion, an offending post, was that we are here for support and that the post was not supportive. That was just my opinion.
Susan
- By peyz33
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 6:38 pm
- Report post
I wrote this in response to another post a few days ago by D1 (for whom I have the highest regard) and since this post has taken the same direction I have cut and pasted it here too:
Ok - I just read all of the posts to this original one- like I have said so many times before (and this is just MY opinion) - LC - whether caused by smoking, or 2nd hand smoke is still CANCER - look at all the people who went down to ground zero after 9/11 and now have lung cancer or other cancers from the debri left behind after the collapse - the millions of exploded flourecent lights - and all the other cancer causing pathegins that were mixed in - do we separate out the ones who smoked? Do we say - "hey you - the smoker - you don't deserve to be cared for because you smoked and would have gotten this disease anyway?" - NO we don't - I am sorry that anyone has this disease - how about all the members here who quit smoking 25 years ago and have just gotten dx'd? What about them - Karol - I understand how upset you must be - but if your son had been stricken with ANY other type of cancer you wouldn't feel this way would you? Only because LC has this stigma were you able to find someone to be angry at - and hey - if you need a target to get pissed off at I can suggest a few - how about our politicians? Our new casters? The tobacco companies? Just to name a few. I am so sick and tired of people blaming LC on smokers - whether they smoked yesterday or 25 years ago - we need to fight together - not against each other - this is WAR and the enemy is CANCER.....ok - I feel better now......
Karen
- By jr1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm
- Report post
Karen, I read your response on the other discussion and enjoyed reading it again. The last few lines says it all - this is war and the enemy is Cancer. Who cares how we got this dreaded disease, we all must be united in our fight. You are right if we want to be mad at someone, politicians and the tobacco industry is a good place to start along with a host of others. But getting mad isn't going to help. Getting involved with our local cancer advocates, writing politicians, trying to educate people about this silent killer can all make a difference in the long run.
Janet
- By gonehiking
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 7:06 pm
- Report post
Hi Susan ,
Please don't feel sorry for starting this thread or posting about this topic. I know that I, for one, am not really bothered at all by anything that has been said here over the past day. In fact, I think it was good to see people express their opinions and discuss what bothers them. For me, it's no biggie -- a sort of non-issue as I remain chiefly interested in trying to find a way to get people actively pressuring for more lunger cancer research dollars (my personal interest is in "treatment research"). That's why I think it's useful to look beyond the smoker/non-smoker issue. Unfortunately the "smoker's disease" thing diverts attention from some of the other serious sources of air pollutants that we should all be aware of and concerned about:
1.) crop and lawn spraying (the unenlightened still cotinue to spray poison on their lawns just to kill a few dandelions).
2.) industrial pollution, including things like incinerators that are spewing all kinds of creepy dusts and chemicals into the air around us.
3.) vehicle emissions - especially diesel fumes.
4.) PBDEs - polybrominated diphenyl ethers -- Our houses are absolutely FULL of particles of these fire retardent chemicals which are impregnated into practically "everything" made of foam or plastic. PBDEs are considered to be "a close chemical cousin of the carcinogen PCBS". Researchers have found that the easiest way to collect this chemical which is contaminating rivers, etc... is to just go out and collect vacuum cleaner bags from people's houses. They are absolutely packed FULL of particles of this chemical!!. See Everyday Poisons in Walrus Magazine for a good overview of the PBDE situation.
Again, while I think "cause" of LC is important, there are, in fact, so many probably causes of it, that I think we have to try to get beyond thinking of it in those terms. Instead, we need to be looking at how to deal with the disease itself as we quite surely, will *never* be able to effectively protect ourselves from all of the different routes of infection.
bev
- By gonehiking
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 7:14 pm
- Report post
Hi Janet,
Sorry if my post seemed to be critical of what you had written. My only point was to say that, for each of us, I think we have personal "flash points" -- those things that upset or infuriate us about lung cancer. For me, it's the way we are all being exposed to multiple pollution sources. As I have been involved in a lot of wildlife habitat conservation work, I'm probably more tuned into how much our lives are being impacted by toxins all around us.
bev
- By peyz33
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 7:19 pm
- Report post
Hi Janet - I just get so frustrated sometimes - I guess everyone has a "hot button: and since my dx Lung Cancer in general and in particular is mine....
KP
- By jr1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm
- Report post
Hi Susan,
I have no problem with the discussion you started Susan and I really did not mean to give you that impression. I was just trying to share my opinion on why some non smokers might get so up in arms. Like I said before, I have not seen Karol's remarks. It appears that second hand smoke is a hot button for some people. Until some of these discussions lately, I never considered myself any different than any other lung cancer victum. I enjoy this web site for the information people share about their treatments and experiences. I don't particularly care for all this talk about smokers and non smokers. I want to save my strength to fight for proper funding for this ugly disease.
Janet
- By SusanL1
- Posted July 6, 2008 at 8:58 pm
- Report post
Hi Janet:
If you read the post you would know why I was disturbed. I wasn't bothered by someone complaining about second-hand smoke, I can understand that. It was just the way it was said. I believe in freedom of speech and I think everyone has a right to their opinions, but I just thought it was an insensitive way to post on a support board.
I agree that we all need to band together and fight for funding and recognition of this horrible disease. Whether we smoked or not, we all have one thing in common that bonds us - we all have or are touched by lung cancer, and we all want to see a cure.
Thanks for your post.
Susan
Sorry, this discussion is closed to replies.
Hi Janet,
I'm not sure that this discussion is actually splitting us up in any way. Instead, I see this as a way of working through how to address the stigma that is obviously working against all of us in securing better funding for lung cancer research. And, as far as smoking being behind most lung cancer, check out this web movie which I just came across this morning -- which discusses why there is a growing number of non-smoking women who are getting lung cancer. According to the researcher in the movie, it may have something to do with hormones, etc...
bev