tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post3747576955059523074..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Bad luck and cancerChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-35250325318521208722015-01-05T01:45:58.540+00:002015-01-05T01:45:58.540+00:00"Did people really think that most or all can..."Did people really think that most or all cancers are due to bad habits?"<br /><br />It may or may not be but the authors genius lay in guessing people might believe so and framing their work's findings and conclusions in such a manner.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-54001092493331254102015-01-03T13:07:02.727+00:002015-01-03T13:07:02.727+00:00My concern is that if smoking has stabilised at 20...My concern is that if smoking has stabilised at 20% of the adult population and lung cancer incidence is increasing then why isn't vehicle and other particulate air pollution a headline?Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-61604003100214157452015-01-03T11:19:22.634+00:002015-01-03T11:19:22.634+00:00Of course this report is dangerous! It 'sends ...Of course this report is dangerous! It 'sends the wrong message', that message being that the professional puritans have been lying and exaggerating for years. <br /><br />It's 'dangerous' because it represents a clear and present danger to their comfy sinecures. <br /><br />Ye Gods, if this report runs on in the press they might have to go out and get proper jobs! And they won't even get to bully anyone anymore! Heaven forbid! Time for some serious damage limitation. Watch for the flurry of press releases from ASH, CRUK <i>et al</i> talking up the perils of smoking and talking down the essential points of this report.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-81536119444908986772015-01-03T01:47:36.671+00:002015-01-03T01:47:36.671+00:00The tobacco control inquisitors will spin this to ...The tobacco control inquisitors will spin this to demonize smokers whatever the actual data suggests. Notice how they conflate all 'lifestyle' risks to amplify the impact. It doesn't matter if 1/3 or 2/5 are for lifestyle factors hey will count them all as smoking-related. Just as they will count a cancer as smoking-related if the patient smokes even if the actual cancer has another cause. The fact that they have to cherry-pick and manipulate data makes their case suspect. <br /><br /><br />This is similar to how they manipulated and fabricated hospital admission data after the smoking ban to justify the bans event though there was no actual, stable drop in admissions (they are still doing this). <br /><br /><br />The question is how do you get actual, reliable data countering the Puritan, tobacco control, lifestyle totalitarians. The media either parrots the prohibitionists or ignores dissent while politicians hide. The tobacco control myths get enshrined as dogma and each new lie is built upon the last.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-87116249835189440902015-01-03T01:37:14.257+00:002015-01-03T01:37:14.257+00:00CRUK's performance leaves a huge amount to be ...CRUK's performance leaves a huge amount to be desired. You correctly expose the gulf in quality between their politically motivated output and the work of Tomasetti and Vogelstein in Science. With respect, Vogelstein is an oncologist but Tomasetti is a bio-statistician. It worries me that the BBC places undue emphasis on the CRUK contribution, which relies heavily on very questionable epidemiological meta-analysis from the World Cancer Research Fund. I personally do not believe anything from that source to be remotely scientifically credible and serious questions need to be asked about those at CRUK who, for whatever reason, think otherwise.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-18741360295209395852015-01-02T23:23:44.010+00:002015-01-02T23:23:44.010+00:00I've been seeing people coming on the TV, not ...I've been seeing people coming on the TV, not people sorry but "experts" (lol) who are squawking that the information in this report is "dangerous"! Cripes. Because, apparently "a third of cancers are caused by lifestyle". No. I would be very, very interested in hearing the exact breakdown with regards to environment, genetics and lifestyle in that third, I really would.<br />In other news though, the "bad luck" part is pretty frightening to me given that my family is free from hereditary cancer so I thought I'd got off lucky...Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-5188715111993755022015-01-02T17:40:28.933+00:002015-01-02T17:40:28.933+00:00"....the lingering, primitive belief that ill..."....the lingering, primitive belief that ill health is the result of sinfulness and that those who develop cancer somehow deserve it—a belief that is eagerly fostered by the neo-puritans of 'public health'." I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Christopher Snowdon. And it links to the sense that public health is a kind of (secular) religion.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.com