The other day I was sitting in class when the Statistics teacher came in to lecture us on Positive and Negative Correlation. He talked about toothpaste vs. toothbrush and candy vs. valentines day and the like. Then he got to smoking. This made me curious. He told us that he wanted to clear up a fallacy that has been socially accepted for quite some time. Smoking cannot be proven to cause Caner. I, personally, did not understand. I had always been taught the harmful effects of smoking and this just blew me away.
He went on to further explain himself. He stated that they are positively correlated. Statistics have shown that people who smoke tend to develop certain types of cancer. However, It has never been provern that smoking causes cancer. "Correlation is different from Causation," he said.
I did not believe him at first so I did some research. And sure enough I came across this blog post along with many other research articles:
More on Smoking and Cancer
I found your article on smoking quite interesting. (And I am currently a smoker. I have quit several times, but can't stand the weight gain that occurs. I am a 45 year old woman, with Fibromyalgia.)
In 1984-86, I attended a community college where I majored in Psychology. My professor had stated that it is impossible to ethically prove that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Some smokers never get lung cancer, and some who have never smoked a cigarette in their lives get lung cancer.
It may well be that smokers have an inability to handle stress, and that this is part of the reason they smoke. Also, cigarette smokers usually have addictive personalities.
He stated that the only way to ever prove that cigarettes cause cancer is to randomly select a large group of children. Again, by random selection, one must divide them into two groups...half of them most smoke, and half are to never smoke. Then compare the incidence of lung cancer. Since this method is, of course, quite unethical, it can never be proven that it is cigarettes that cause lung cancer.
I just wanted to run that by you. I do intend to quit again, and I don't want my kids to smoke. But, I appreciated your article that supports the notion that cigarettes do not CAUSE cancer, only increase the risk.
Thanks...
Lisa Messmer
For more on this particular blog visit:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Comments/c4-2.htm
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
While it is technically true that you can't prove a causal relationship between smoking and cancer (mainly for ethical reasons) it's pretty obvious that smoking does cause cancer and a whole host of other ills. In my time as a respiratory therapist, I cared for thousands of patients with lung cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and the whole other host of respiratory illnesses. And the one common factor among them all was: smoking!
There were a few patients who had never smoked, but typically I was treating them for influenza or pneumonia.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
well from watching my grandparents and their brothers and sisters smoke, i can tell that smoking is not worth the risk. two of my grandmothers smoked all their lives, and just recently they both passed away. one who was battling all sorts of cancer, and the other with heart problems and cancer on top of that. even my step grampa smoked all his life and he had to have his vocal chords removed. compare that to my grampa who quit smoking at a very young age, he is 57 and very healthy. the correlation is to strong for it to be worth the risk at all.
It's hard to trust anything the pharmacorporation throws your way. O well, time for a cig.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
Yea, it's really not worth the risk.
+mspin