Quitting Smoking abruptly and High Rate of Lung Cancer

I have known only three people to have lung cancer. All of them had quit smoking shortly before being diagnosed. If you are thinking of quitting, you might structure your quitting method by this study. This kind of science doesn't often make the mainstream news because, after all, the goal is to force smokers to quit immediately.
The clinically high correlation between smoking
and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal
point in societal campaigns against the habit
and the tobacco lobby. In an overview of personal
history in a number of lung cancer patients
locally, we are struck by the more than
casual relationship between the appearance of
lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation
of the smoking habit in many, if not most
cases.
The association is more than just casual-development
of cancer within a few months of eschewing
cigarette smoking.
Over a period of 4 years, a total of 312 cases
were treated for carcinoma of pulmonary origin:
of this number, 182 patients had quit smoking
within 5 15 months prior to their being diagnosed
with lung cancer. Of the 182 patients 142 were
male and 40 were females, with ages ranged between
47 and 74.
Each one of had been addicted to the habit for
no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks
a day. The striking direct statistical correlation between
cessation of smoking to the development of
lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring
to be dismissed as coincidental.
It is our premise that a surge and spurt in
re-activation of bodily healing and repair mechanisms
of chronic smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia
is induced and spurred by an abrupt
discontinuation of habit, goes awry, triggering
uncontrolled cell division and tumor genesis. In
normal tissue healing, anabolic and catabolic
processes achieve equilibrium approximately 6
8 weeks after the original insult. When an imbalance
occurs between these phases occur in the
healing process, disruptions in repair limitations
occur leading to tumor genesis this sequence is
best exemplified in the formation of keloids from
scars [1].
Nicotine stimulates corticotrophin-releasing
factor (CRF) besides increasing the level of adrenocorticotropic
hormone (ACTH), both of which
interfere with immune systems [2]. Abrupt withdrawal
of the addictive drug could trigger derangement
of the ‘smoking-steroid’ conferred immunity,
priming the healing lung epithelia to dangerous
levels uncontrolled cell division
http://www.data-yard.net/science/dangers_cess...

Smokers, please read

Quitting smoking CAUSES cancer? No. Anecdotal evidence strikes again.

A high CORRELATION in the amount of people who have quit smoking and those DIAGNOSED with cancer is hardly shocking.

Those who have quit smoking have taken an active interest in their health and are much more likely to visit medical professionals. Remember, you cannot be diagnosed unless you actually go to the doctor. Had they kept smoking and not gone to the doctor, they would still have the cancer.

Funny how you don't seem to grasp that you have known only three people that have had lung cancer and they were all smokers. That's 100% of the people you know with lung cancer were smokers. If they are still alive, ask them if they wish they had stopped sooner. Actually getting cancer has a way of getting people to see the light.

Sheri; I ask a Radiologist At John Hopkins and a Pulmonary Dr here in Frederick about that last time it was brought up on the forum. Both said the abouit same thing, " people often feel or know something is wrong, get scared and quit smoking but by that time it's to late" Sad to say very few smokers, or anyone survive lung cancer.

*about

just candid wrote:

Sheri; I ask a Radiologist At John Hopkins and a Pulmonary Dr here in Frederick about that last time it was brought up on the forum. Both said the abouit same thing, " people often feel or know something is wrong, get scared and quit smoking but by that time it's to late" Sad to say very few smokers, or anyone survive lung cancer.

Could be what you say. Could be as explained here. Nothing would be lost by those who want to quit smoking to do so gradually as explained in this study, and that makes great sense to me. A doctor friend of mine said that the best way to quit smoking is to cut out 1 cigarette per week until reaching 1 or 2 cigarettes a day. Then, the person can decide if he wants to also eliminate those cigarettes. Everyone knows that 1-2 cigarettes a day is not harmful....no matter what the zealots say.

Frisbee wrote:

Quitting smoking CAUSES cancer? No. Anecdotal evidence strikes again.
A high CORRELATION in the amount of people who have quit smoking and those DIAGNOSED with cancer is hardly shocking.
Those who have quit smoking have taken an active interest in their health and are much more likely to visit medical professionals. Remember, you cannot be diagnosed unless you actually go to the doctor. Had they kept smoking and not gone to the doctor, they would still have the cancer.
Funny how you don't seem to grasp that you have known only three people that have had lung cancer and they were all smokers. That's 100% of the people you know with lung cancer were smokers. If they are still alive, ask them if they wish they had stopped sooner. Actually getting cancer has a way of getting people to see the light.

I guess you did not read the study.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Could be what you say. Could be as explained here. Nothing would be lost by those who want to quit smoking to do so gradually as explained in this study, and that makes great sense to me. A doctor friend of mine said that the best way to quit smoking is to cut out 1 cigarette per week until reaching 1 or 2 cigarettes a day. Then, the person can decide if he wants to also eliminate those cigarettes. Everyone knows that 1-2 cigarettes a day is not harmful....no matter what the zealots say.

Hope you've had a good Turkey Day!!! If your Dr friend said that's the best way to do it, Go For It :~) From what I've heard it's very hard for long time smokers to only smoke 1-2 cigarettes per day. If it were not for the addictive nature of tobacco and a persons system demanding more nicotine all the time, I might agree 1-2 cigarettes per day would likely cause little harm.

Sheri wrote:

I guess you did not read the study.

You guessed wrong.
You have a lot in common with the authors of your referenced material. All they have is a guess about some data they collected while studying something else. No further testing to prove the hypothesis. No peer review. Just published a guess. My explanation of the correlation makes much more sense and would be easy to support if an Actual study on the topic were conducted.

So what did your friends say? Are they still alive?

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>
You guessed wrong.
You have a lot in common with the authors of your referenced material. All they have is a guess about some data they collected while studying something else. No further testing to prove the hypothesis. No peer review. Just published a guess. My explanation of the correlation makes much more sense and would be easy to support if an Actual study on the topic were conducted.
So what did your friends say? Are they still alive?

My guess is that you are quick to judge studies that do not reach conclusions that support your views of smoking. http://www.data-yard.net/science/dangers_cess... If you do not believe that studies unsupported by scientific rigor, then you would disagree with virtually all studies of secondhand smoke except for the Enstrom study.
They are all based on questionnaires on distant and unverifiable memories of exposure of decades earlier, often applied to the heirs of a deceased person. Questions such as:“I want you to remember your childhood, and how many cigarettes, pipes or cigars you were exposed to when your relatives came to visit” are the norm. Those memories are then transformed into “exact” numbers. It does not take a specialist to understand that this is wild guess and unethical science; but this is the only foundation of smoking bans all over the world.

See criticism of the EPA report,
Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by "surrogates." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)

Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25)

Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. They were finally forced to when Philip Morris won a lawsuit to gain access to it.

Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?
Get Smartenized®
Read the
Quick Hitts Blog.

Listen to the
Quick Hitts Podcast.

Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.

Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
the Surgeon General's report,
http://tinyurl.com/5fq7r6
and the influx of science by press release as prime examples.
http://tinyurl.com/5fq7r6

Bla-Bla-Bla and more Bla. I've seen this before, smokers will come up with and say anything to keep on smoking, if it wern't so sad it would be funny.

Sheri wrote:

My guess is that you are quick to judge studies that do not reach conclusions that support your views of smoking.

You guess wrong again.
You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the difference between hypothesis and conclusion. Directly quoted from the two sources YOU have provided:

"Should chronic addicts be weaned or tapered
off tobacco instead of being advised to giving up
smoking overnight? Should the immune and revitalizing
mechanisms be given time lapse to adjust
to the withdrawal? Larger studies and mass
reviews of case histories in lung cancer patients
Could throw more light on this, rather unusual
clinical observation."
Asking more questions and stating that more study would be helpful is hardly a conclusion.

Read this one closely, you seem to have missed it the first time. Notice the difference in committal level of the language (May vs. Should).
"In summary, the findings of the present study IMPLY that
smoking cessation itself MAY result in increasing BP, even
hypertension, in men through an unknown mechanism that
needs to be clarified. However, this finding SHOULD NOT
distract from the WELL-KNOWN HARMFUL EFFECTS of cigarette smoking, nor should it encourage smoking.

The author knew that people like yourself would attempt to use this to fabricate some sort of health benefit to smoking and quite deliberately told you that was not the case.

Instead of just cutting and pasting some 'sciency' sounding things from a pro smoking web site, why don't you actually read them?

Think. It's not illegal yet.

Still waiting to hear about what your friends with cancer have to say about wishing they quit sooner, if they are still alive.

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>
You guess wrong again.
You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the difference between hypothesis and conclusion. Directly quoted from the two sources YOU have provided:
"Should chronic addicts be weaned or tapered
off tobacco instead of being advised to giving up
smoking overnight? Should the immune and revitalizing
mechanisms be given time lapse to adjust
to the withdrawal? Larger studies and mass
reviews of case histories in lung cancer patients
Could throw more light on this, rather unusual
clinical observation."
Asking more questions and stating that more study would be helpful is hardly a conclusion.
Read this one closely, you seem to have missed it the first time. Notice the difference in committal level of the language (May vs. Should).
"In summary, the findings of the present study IMPLY that
smoking cessation itself MAY result in increasing BP, even
hypertension, in men through an unknown mechanism that
needs to be clarified. However, this finding SHOULD NOT
distract from the WELL-KNOWN HARMFUL EFFECTS of cigarette smoking, nor should it encourage smoking.
The author knew that people like yourself would attempt to use this to fabricate some sort of health benefit to smoking and quite deliberately told you that was not the case.
Instead of just cutting and pasting some 'sciency' sounding things from a pro smoking web site, why don't you actually read them?
Think. It's not illegal yet.
Still waiting to hear about what your friends with cancer have to say about wishing they quit sooner, if they are still alive.

My friends with cancer were all non-smokers. One died of melanoma at 32. Another died of pancreatic cancer at 64. One other friend is 52 and he is currently ill with pancreatic cancer. The people I know with lung cancer were mere acquaintances, not close friends. One was a third cousin who quit smoking a year before he died. His wife said that she wished she had never made him quit since he did not enjoy that last year before he died. A second cousin by marriage contacted lung cancer within a year of quitting smoking. He did not die though. Thirty years later at age 82, he died of brain cancer. A third person I knew of through a good friend of mine. He was her brother-in-law and he quit smoking a little over a year before he was diagnosed with lung cancer and died shortly thereafter. So, asshole, neither the friends I know who were non-smokers nor the acquaintances that I had who all died of cancer will be able to testify about their illnesses because they are DEAD. You will be dead someday also, and for all your faith in scientific studies, you will be taking the same dirt nap that awaits us all.
You look particularly stupid because you did not read my post. Had you done that, you would have seen that I agreed that smokers ready to quit should taper off from smoking rather than quit cold....just in case this "sciencey" article is correct in its assumptions. You are an ASSHOLE

Ah the tired 'we are all going to die, I could get some other kind of cancer' ridiculous logic....(sigh) Yes, we are all well aware that any of us could get hit by a car tomorrow. We are also well aware that someone who plays in traffic is a moron.

100% of the acquaintances of yours who have lung cancer were smokers. You encourage others to 'Think" while paying thousands of dollars to willfully poison yourself. You found some information you considered important enough to bring to everyone's attention, but don't seem to want to acknowledge the part that says:
"However, this finding SHOULD NOT
distract from the WELL-KNOWN HARMFUL EFFECTS of cigarette smoking, nor should it encourage smoking."

YOU brought up your acquaintances and used their tragic stories to support your argument and call me an asshole when I ask you to elaborate.
I'll have to disagree on who looks particularly stupid.

You might want to have a couple of smokes before your blood pressure gets to high.

Sheri wrote:

You are an ASSHOLE

lol... cracked like an egg. i was wondering how long that would take.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Could be what you say. Could be as explained here. Nothing would be lost by those who want to quit smoking to do so gradually as explained in this study, and that makes great sense to me. A doctor friend of mine said that the best way to quit smoking is to cut out 1 cigarette per week until reaching 1 or 2 cigarettes a day. Then, the person can decide if he wants to also eliminate those cigarettes. Everyone knows that 1-2 cigarettes a day is not harmful....no matter what the zealots say.

It is much more difficult to quit gradually than it is to quit all at once. For some reason or another you are against people quitting smoking.

You are against people using Chantix because Chantix MAY have some serious side effects and some may die. I got news for you. SMOKING KILLS.

You are against using the patch because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.

You are against using nicotine gum because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.

Now you are against quitting cold turkey because there MAY be a causal relationship between quitting abruptly and lung cancer. I got news for you. SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER.

Smoking kills. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The sooner a smoker quits smoking, the better their chances are of not getting cancer or COPD or heart disease or any one of a number of other illnesses which are often fatal and which have been linked to cigarette smoking.

I am sorry that you live in such denial of the problems that cigarette smoking causes and that you are living in such fear of quitting smoking. You would be well served to see a doctor to see what steps you need to take to quit smoking with the onset of the new year, whether you decide to do it with medication or without, with nicotine replacement therapy or without or cold turkey vs "weaning" oneself off of cigarettes. If you cannot trust your doctor to provide you with proper guidanceon this, they you cannot trust your doctor at all and need to find one that you can trust since you are placing your most valuable asset, your health, in the habds of the doctor.

Get it wrote:

<quoted text>
It is much more difficult to quit gradually than it is to quit all at once. For some reason or another you are against people quitting smoking.
You are against people using Chantix because Chantix MAY have some serious side effects and some may die. I got news for you. SMOKING KILLS.
You are against using the patch because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.
You are against using nicotine gum because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.
Now you are against quitting cold turkey because there MAY be a causal relationship between quitting abruptly and lung cancer. I got news for you. SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER.
Smoking kills. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The sooner a smoker quits smoking, the better their chances are of not getting cancer or COPD or heart disease or any one of a number of other illnesses which are often fatal and which have been linked to cigarette smoking.
I am sorry that you live in such denial of the problems that cigarette smoking causes and that you are living in such fear of quitting smoking. You would be well served to see a doctor to see what steps you need to take to quit smoking with the onset of the new year, whether you decide to do it with medication or without, with nicotine replacement therapy or without or cold turkey vs "weaning" oneself off of cigarettes. If you cannot trust your doctor to provide you with proper guidanceon this, they you cannot trust your doctor at all and need to find one that you can trust since you are placing your most valuable asset, your health, in the habds of the doctor.

Tell us oh hypocritical one who loves to find fault with others....have you given up meats yet? If not...why?

When should we expect to see you hammering the meat eaters who foolishly poison themselves and their families?

Once again I will ask you...what kind of hypocritical moral busybody control freak would willingly and knowingly feed their family things that are KNOWN to cause lung and other cancers when healthier choices are readily available...and then have the audacity to come to these boards to condemn others lifestyle choices they find unhealthy?

How can such people look in the mirror without becoming ill?

There is nothing worse than a moral busybody control freak with HUGE double standards eh?

Frisbee wrote:

Ah the tired 'we are all going to die, I could
You might want to have a couple of smokes before your blood pressure gets to high.

Yes, I think I will

Get it wrote:

<quoted text>
It is much more difficult to quit gradually than it is to quit all at once. For some reason or another you are against people quitting smoking.
You are against people using Chantix because Chantix MAY have some serious side effects and some may die. I got news for you. SMOKING KILLS.
You are against using the patch because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.
You are against using nicotine gum because the pharmaceutical companies make money off smoking cessation products. I got news for you. BIG TOBACCO MAKES MEGABUCKS OFF SMOKERS.
Now you are against quitting cold turkey because there MAY be a causal relationship between quitting abruptly and lung cancer. I got news for you. SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER.
Smoking kills. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The sooner a smoker quits smoking, the better their chances are of not getting cancer or COPD or heart disease or any one of a number of other illnesses which are often fatal and which have been linked to cigarette smoking.
I am sorry that you live in such denial of the problems that cigarette smoking causes and that you are living in such fear of quitting smoking. You would be well served to see a doctor to see what steps you need to take to quit smoking with the onset of the new year, whether you decide to do it with medication or without, with nicotine replacement therapy or without or cold turkey vs "weaning" oneself off of cigarettes. If you cannot trust your doctor to provide you with proper guidanceon this, they you cannot trust your doctor at all and need to find one that you can trust since you are placing your most valuable asset, your health, in the habds of the doctor.

I'm not the one quitting smoking, and as I said, the gradual method was one suggested to me by my doctor. Since you are not a smoker, it is really none of your business at all how others might decide to quit smoking....or not.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell us oh hypocritical one who loves to find fault with others....have you given up meats yet? If not...why?
When should we expect to see you hammering the meat eaters who foolishly poison themselves and their families?
Once again I will ask you...what kind of hypocritical moral busybody control freak would willingly and knowingly feed their family things that are KNOWN to cause lung and other cancers when healthier choices are readily available...and then have the audacity to come to these boards to condemn others lifestyle choices they find unhealthy?
How can such people look in the mirror without becoming ill?
There is nothing worse than a moral busybody control freak with HUGE double standards eh?

You are the moral busynody control freak who wants to poison others with his own selfish, self destructive addiction.

Go smoke. Smoke everything you have and buy some more and smoke some more. The more you smoke the sooner you will die and the better off the whole world will be since you are someone who has such little control over his addiciton he is willing to see other people die in order to engage in it.