Smoker Bans /Federal dictates: Running the numbers scam on us.

Have you ever been challenged to explain why 80% [or 90%] of lung cancers are found among those who smoke or those who have ever smoked? depending on the expertise of those making the claim.

The statement 80% of lung cancers are among current and ever smokers is cautiously the closest to reality found in credible [accepted] research, other versions of the phrase, are most predominantly a result of aggressive lobby group misquotes along with outright deceptive statements to gain political advantage.

“So say one, so say them all” is tightly connected to groups such as we witnessed with the anti smoker scandal. Tightly associated partners who have been known to turf their brightest and most convincing members directly into the spoiled identity, denormalization process, along side it’s other victims, simply for speaking critically or out of turn. Although they describe themselves a grassroots movement, nothing could be further from the truth. The structure is solidly top down and is applied as an act utilized against communities, as opposed to an act stemming from the community.

Getting back to the popular phrase in point. If we examine the actual people who have lung cancers one striking physical attribute, can immediately be seen; the vast majority of them are elderly this promotes a large part of the 80% ratio. A ratio which mirrors another ratio; cancers above 65 years of age and cancers below 65 years of age. Remember the phrase current or ever smokers? If we examine the time when smoking was in the majority of the population back in 1958 we saw the ratio expressed as 54% in total population choose to smoke. A number which of course included 25% of the population, who would be much less likely to smoke at the time although the majority would eventually start, because for lack of a better description; they were simply too young to smoke.

The numbers are further lopsided by the fact women used tobacco much less than men, by proportion a pretty substantial confounder which is hidden in the research numbers when evaluations of male only groups are compared to female only, or mixed groups. The moral standards at the time were much more forcefully regulated among teachers and parents, with corporal punishments accepted in the schools. To see a child under the age of 15 who smoked was quite rare. So if we take that perspective into consideration; we have to eliminate the children because it has yet to be determined what their status will be when the choice is available to them. We adjust the ratio to reflect those over the age of 15 and we arrive with a ratio of 54% versus 21% or 61% versus 39% in the over 15 group.

So naturally we would expect to see 61% of cancers among current or ever smokers by their numbers alone without considering any health risks. And we see a good number of them among those who survived and comprise the majority over 80% of those afflicted with cancers today. With an aging population that figure is only more likely to grow.

Now we have to get into knit picking to explain a number of other factors unique to our current cancer patients. The factors are applicable to all in the population however if we take the popular view, the split identifying those who smoke will also produce higher numbers by compounding, similar to how they calculate your mortgage interest, because they represent a larger slice of those being discussed when, assessing each known cause for distribution. For example, those exposed to asbestos in younger years would represent a certain percentage of cancers today, for every 10 of those people regardless of the fact all their cancers were caused by asbestos, because we choose to assign cancers by smoking status the split would be 6 smoking and 4 not, add that to the original percentages of one hundred people and you now have 67.1 ever smokers versus 43.9 never smokers. 65% versus 35% Notice how we now have a compounding factor, which increases the ratio? Continue adding other known causes 10 people at a time and eventually the ratio is notably spread farther apart eventually finding 80% versus 20% when realistically the increased risk, assessed by the “experts” is said to be only 15-20% above the norm.

It is the distribution by preordained status, which assigns a larger number to the total group, as opposed to simply counting heads and making an evaluation of each group separated by known primary cause, in common sense terms. Lung cancers among people who smoke are in the 1-5% range and in total population the incidence numbers have risen six fold above what they were in 1960, which suggests the largest factors are not being clearly explained, in the common belief defined as simply “caused by smoking” The one factor, few in the lobbies like to look at destroys the myth. There were almost a stable number of smokers over the past 50 years span between 55 and 60 million people smoked, although as a percentage of a growing population the numbers appeared to decline according to the funny papers and ad agency spin. We seldom heard the real figures just the “appropriate figures”. They declined in almost exactly the same percentages as the population total increased, allowing the 80% of lung cancers figure to be maintained for decades with the real investigations into growing causes allowed to be stalled, with a lack of public concern. The gentle cooing of the cancer societies shored up by the medical institutions; funds were never deemed to be necessary, to research a forgone conclusion.

Recent studies precariously dance around the numbers, knowing if a research study is to be approved for publication; it must fit with the status quo. Similarly because the funds for research are tightly controlled by a small group of connected industries, the possibility to receive funding is tightly dependent on participation in avoiding the possible risk to the parent organization contributing the funds. In a similar way to what is described by the lobby groups; the tobacco industry can influence a conclusion. It follows all other major industries have the same ability, otherwise the medical institutions would never admit this to be possible, a stance which undermines their own credibility and an admission this is unavoidable, within the confines of what is additive to common cult beliefs.

If we examine the numbers we see that if lung cancers exist among those who do not smoke in the range of 20%, it stands to reason among those who do choose to smoke or have ever smoked, a similar number of non related cancers would also occur within the larger group; 60 versus 40 in smoking status. It is fair to say 20% of the group who do smoke would have to be deducted from the number of those in total, defined as having ever smoked. Reducing further the causative nature of; the original sensationalist, yet quite reasonable and expected 80% figure.

Thus the ratio of 60/40 regardless of health risk can once again be demonstrated as the norm. The only division is therefore gained only by their status of division and provides no evidence smoking is a causative factor in their cancers.

Yes, it is fair to say half of those who smoke will die of smoking related diseases, as long as you agree; so too will everyone else.

Citations;

Risk reductions

Poison in the dose 1

Poison in the dose 2

Poison in the dose 3

Cancer identification and rates

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050128-4.htm

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/24

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925214831.htm

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/4/231

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/141

According to Thun...