My Photo
Name:
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada

Monday, April 24, 2006

Who you gonna believe It becomes more dificult by the day, to sort out the real from the rhetoric

In reviewing the Heather Crow WCB documents it becomes clear her diagnosis was likely a political statement much more than a learned opinion, or an attempt by a doctor not well schooled in Cancer diagnosis. This can be shown in a CDC investigation of a suspected Cancer cluster. The findings showed that no such cluster existed due to a single word explanation “Latency”.

The latency period would be the time between exposure and the onset of disease. For smokers this has always been understood to be a period between 20 and 30 years following prior smoking habits. In fact this stands as the only excuse for the significant declines over the past 45 years in smoking prevalence not resulting in parallel declines in related diseases. Offerings to the public could be seen now to be mistaken unless Heather’s diagnosis was flawed or fraudulent both stories would have a hard time to co-exist in any sense of credibility. Cancers manifest in smokers in the vast majority in later years. Although there are exceptions, which are argumentative, for the most part this has always been the rule with the larger numbers in those later years elevation risk and strong associations could only decrease.

What would be the effect of accepting a shortened latency period? Undoubtedly this would give evidence a lot less Cancers are caused by smoking than previously believed. Now we come to Ms Crow. Who in contracting a workplace injury with less than 5 years total exposure developed a smoker’s tumor? Total smoke ingested in her 5 years employment by calculation in the smokiest of conditions would amount to less than 2 packages of cigarettes smoked. The ban fans would jump for joy at this realization confirming the deadly attributes of the smoke however in comparison to a time in 1960 when everyone was exposed in daily life why did we not see lineups at the cancer wards? If indeed the smoke affected her, the thousands who contract cancer only in later years could not be as strongly associated with smoking as previously believed. For smokers, their spouses, Children and co workers cancer would have manifested much sooner in life.

Lung Cancers could be more significantly associated to some other factor, which could in fact be seen as simply old age, a depreciated immune system not able to fight off one of many viruses responsible, as we know for at minimum 20% of total cancers. Lung cancers account for less than 1% of total mortality yet when we think of smoking we assume Lung cancer to be the most significant outcome. In SAMMEC research a smoker below 35 years of age has little significant mortality risk especially with males who traditionally smoke a lot more. Certainly in most research, risk varies significantly according to how much you smoke and for how long. Perhaps there is something to Heather’s case and as common sense would dictate smoking is not as deadly as we once believed. With a shorter latency period aligning with all other known toxins named in the smoke, air pollution can now be seen the most likely cause of a lot more shortened lives than we gave it credit for in the past.

Latency proves Heather was not a great candidate for the poster girl in tobacco control. She did not work her entire life in this bar and only started after the age of 50 when the risk of cancer increases with age. If she were predisposed to Cancer this would be the time in her life it would most likely appear regardless of ETS in her life. The overall exposure, the amount of time between exposure and onset or Latency, along with a number of other entirely suspicious indicators connected with this story. I personally find it very difficult to accept what is offered is the basis for smoking bans around the globe protecting workers from smoke which can kill with such minor exposure indicates they are all already doomed.

Heather may be the piece of the puzzle, which unmasks the advocates for who they really are and what it is they represent. As an action plan if we could organize a lot of questions regarding latency periods to start swamping Healthcare professionals Heather I would guess would finally be unmasked and her Doctor could be held to account for defrauding the WCB as justice would demand.

Sidebar information from the 50 Year study of doctors who smoke.

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' Observations on male British doctors

Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham and Isabelle Sutherland

About half of all persistent cigarette smokers are killed by
their habit—a quarter while still in middle age (35-69 years)
After a large increase in cigarette smoking by young people,
the full effects on national mortality rates can take more

than 50 years to mature

British men born in the first few decades of the 20th century could be the first population in the world in which the full long term hazards of cigarette smoking, and the corresponding benefits of stopping, can be assessed directly Among the particular generation of men born around 1920, cigarette smoking tripled the age specific mortality rates Among British men born 1900-1909, cigarette smoking approximately doubled the age specific mortality rates in both middle and old age Longevity has been improving rapidly for non-smokers, but not for men who continued smoking cigarettes Cessation at age 50 halved the hazard; cessation at 30 avoided almost all of it On average, cigarette smokers die about 10 years younger than non-smokers Stopping at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 gains, respectively, about 3,6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy

It cannot be said any clearer than that by a source who cannot be associated to the Tobacco industry. At 30 after 14 years of smoking no significant risk compared to ETS which can have devastating effects in as little as 20 minutes according to ASH. At measured levels in the norm at 250 Milligrams per cubic meter of air a deadly risk more deadly than Benzene with a known safe level at 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Personally I would prefer to take my chances with the second hand smoke or ETS, Benzene would worry me. If Government information was not so misleading, it should affect you the same way. I sincerely hope no one is injured while they sort this one out.

Equality of all citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian constitution and a view of reality

As portrayed at tobaccolaw.org

..............

_______________<Sponsored by: <,,,,,!...Funded by:

© HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (1999) as represented by the Ministry of Health


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home