Public health (heart) lung cancer

Just appalling. Public health loves them some lung cancer if it means they can hate on smoking.

These forecasts are years from real-world application, but their implications are worth considering. One such challenge is how to resolve the tension between creating a lung cancer vaccine and keeping the smoking rates low. The U.S. has made tremendous strides since the mid-1960s in eradicating cigarettes, but fears of cancer and disease serve as driving forces of that change. If scientists take them off the table, Johnson admits, there may be less incentive to quit.
“It’s a fine line,” she said of the public health dilemma. In conquering one major form of burden — lung cancer — researchers could unintentionally spark a new one. More important to her is keeping the rest of the world in mind. “Globally, there’s going to be a need even if we have great results here in this country in smoking cessation.”
So basically she is apologizing for possibly making smoking less unhealthy. As I said, public health loves lung cancer. Now some might think they would believe that making people immune to a disease is even better than preventing people from engaging in the behavior that causes the disease. But that would be the error of believing that “public health” is about health.

Public health (heart) lung cancer | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Those who talk the most about conflict of interest seem to understand the least about what it really means. Is there a conflict of interest in a cigarette company supporting research to find a cure for lung cancer? No, not any more than if they supported research to find a cure for malaria. They have an interest in finding a cure for lung cancer, but that does not create any conflict with doing good and honest research. Of course, it does create a conflict with the goals of “public health” tobacco controllers because they do not want a cure to exist. A reduction in the toll from lung cancer would be a threat to their business model — threatening both their funding and their foundational myth of tobacco companies wanting their customers to suffer — and also represent undeserved relief for the sinners who they claim to care about, but really despise.

I take it that you’re a pack a day guy?

The anti-smoking Nazis have been lying to us about tobacco use for at LEAST the past 50 years or so. Cigarettes do NOT cause “lung cancer.” If that statement were true, EVERYONE who ever smoked would get lung cancer and today less than half of those with lung cancer ever smoked. They are running ads here claiming that smoking causes colo-rectal cancer, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, tumors of the brain and even breast cancer. BS!

I was. Now I vape.

Not all smokers get lung cancer; and not all lung cancer victims are smokers.

Which doesn’t mean cigarettes don’t make you sick or are not more likely to make you sick.

Friends; let me interject, I was a two pack a day smoker for over 50 years, I now am a heart patient, lung patient, and cannot run any more. I am not an advocate of putting anything into the body that does not belong there.
That being said, I cannot tell anybody what to do with their bodies( what to put in them) but I also cannot tell people lies about what smoking actually does. I am sick to death of those recent anti-smoking commercials featuring the lady with the colostomy bag or guy who had his leg amputated because of some side ailment. This is trash advertizing.
Smoking does not cause anything but may exacerbate a lung cancer condition. or exacerbate a heart and cholesterol condition… I would advise anybody who sought my advise that smoking is not good for you and look for the day when people would see the need not to add stimulants to their system but until then if" you gotta smoke you gotta smoke.