DonH
Well-Known Member
I'm reading Richard White's Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco. Great book! He digs deep into the studies that allegedly show tobacco causes lung cancer and demolishes them.
Some facts: They've never been able to induce lung cancer in animals by forcing them to smoke. The statistical correlations are complete BS, mostly because they attribute any lung cancer to tobacco if the person smokes, but what he calls the "detection bias" means that when heavy smokers go to the doctor, their lungs get checked but non-smokers' lungs don't and there is a surprising number of non-smokers who die with undetected lung cancer which is found during autopsies. Also, he points out that the studies show pipe and cigar smokers have less lung cancer than non-smokers which points to the fact that the difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers for cigarettes probably has to do with the fact that pipe and cigar smokers are from more upper class levels and it's really how much money and class status you have that determines health outcomes. Being poor is stressful. Also, because of all the propaganda, people who smoke cigarettes are generally those who don't follow other health advice such as diet, not drinking too much, etc.
His analysis of the animal studies is interesting too. There is one case where they attached a bunch of dogs to those machines that force them to smoke tons of cigarettes. The same lab by mistake used some of those smoking dogs for a study where they were trying to induce cancer by putting uranium dust into their lungs. Another group of non-smoking dogs were also used in the study. The non-smoking dogs had 100% rate of lung cancer after breathing uranium dust but the group of dogs that smoked had a much lower rate, so inhaling tobacco smoke can be protective against radiation induced lung cancer.
He also shows that there was a lot of outright scientific fraud in the way the studies were constructed.
Mindblowing. The smoking-lung cancer link was way weaker than I ever thought.
Some facts: They've never been able to induce lung cancer in animals by forcing them to smoke. The statistical correlations are complete BS, mostly because they attribute any lung cancer to tobacco if the person smokes, but what he calls the "detection bias" means that when heavy smokers go to the doctor, their lungs get checked but non-smokers' lungs don't and there is a surprising number of non-smokers who die with undetected lung cancer which is found during autopsies. Also, he points out that the studies show pipe and cigar smokers have less lung cancer than non-smokers which points to the fact that the difference in lung cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers for cigarettes probably has to do with the fact that pipe and cigar smokers are from more upper class levels and it's really how much money and class status you have that determines health outcomes. Being poor is stressful. Also, because of all the propaganda, people who smoke cigarettes are generally those who don't follow other health advice such as diet, not drinking too much, etc.
His analysis of the animal studies is interesting too. There is one case where they attached a bunch of dogs to those machines that force them to smoke tons of cigarettes. The same lab by mistake used some of those smoking dogs for a study where they were trying to induce cancer by putting uranium dust into their lungs. Another group of non-smoking dogs were also used in the study. The non-smoking dogs had 100% rate of lung cancer after breathing uranium dust but the group of dogs that smoked had a much lower rate, so inhaling tobacco smoke can be protective against radiation induced lung cancer.
He also shows that there was a lot of outright scientific fraud in the way the studies were constructed.
Mindblowing. The smoking-lung cancer link was way weaker than I ever thought.
. But yes, general lung irritation and even emphysema I believe could be caused by smoking. But that's different from lung cancer. 
