Re: Smoking: inverse association between cancer and inhalation

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:53:03 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> From www.lcolby.com:

> Some would argue, of course, that cigar and pipe smokers inhale less than

> cigarette smokers (although, in my case, I inhale both pipes and cigars). If,

> however, inhalation is a factor in the development of disease, it should show

up

> in relative inhalation rates for cigarette smokers. A study was, in fact,

> conducted by Hill and Doll, which sought to classify cigarette smokers as

inhaling

> vs. non-inhaling. At page 188 of the Report, there is a reference to a

> " negative association " between inhaling and lung cancer, based on the " early "

Hill

> and Dole studies.

> In 1959, in fact, R.A. Fischer analyzed some of the Hill and Doll data and

> concluded that inhalers have a lower rate of lung cancer than non-inhalers 21

..

> Fischer's findings were incorporated into Table 8 of the 1982 Surgeon

> General's Report, but the Report did not deal with this apparent paradox.

>

Can you imagine a doctor telling a patient " inhale your smokes so as to

prevent lung cancer. " ? I mean if that study is correct it seems just as

viable as giving them up, so why not?

No? I didn't think so, LOL!

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.