Comments on: Smoking, Cancer May Be Linked By Genetics

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:28:46 +0000

thats ridiculous! we should be looking for cures but not for that reason. We should be watching what we do to keep ourselves healthy.
Killing off tobacco completely would save lives!

By: Genes are only part of the picture - NEWS.Tuls.Net

Genes are only part of the picture - NEWS.Tuls.Net — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:14:38 +0000

[...] Similar News:Scientific American: Why Some Smokers Get Lung Cancer–And Others Are SparedMedHeadlines: Smoking, Cancer May Be Linked By Genetics [...]

By: Not#31

Not#31 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:09:37 +0000

Here are my exceptions about items contained in the comments of #31:
1) He essentially said that it is not wrong to hurt yourself. (His words: “Smoking . . .is not wrong”.) Some might argue that a person has a “right” to harm themselves but I don’t equate a “right” to right/wrong.
2a) You seem to say that children are expected to yield a “return” on investment. Ok, but the nature of the return is variable. Simple self-joy and parental-joy of their “being” is a return that transcends any dollar equivalent someone might want to put on it.
2b) To call raising the insurance rates on a person who takes greater risks as a knee-jerk reaction sounds like a knee-jerk politicospeak response. (Like you are trying to be a local evening news reporter.)
3) You say that because a company has more money they could be more generous. I agree but your statement is nearly a tautology. I’m not sure how a tautology makes your argument more valid.
Finally, few of your comments seem to be directly related to statements in the article.

By: Not StayOffMyLawn

Not StayOffMyLawn — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:30:35 +0000

StayOffMyLawn your comments are ridiculous. The goal should never to let negligence be the acceptable “norm”. The goal should always be to prevent the injury first and if not possible then issue a cure. Do you see how ridiculous your half-witted though of letting “criminals” run rampant and blaming the victims is? You say that it would be fantastic to have people addicted to drugs. I can’t see how you could say such a thing. Tell you what, if the manufacturers of cigarettes were to take out the addictive chemicals and it was TRULY a matter of choice rather than addiction you might have a point but that is not the case – so your “idea” is nonsensical. You call addiction a win-win situation – that “idea” is sicker than the addicts are. Obviously, your mind is as you say it is (and I quote you). . . “blown”. Considering your inability to reason, I am surprised you got even that right.
Your response sounds so canned, you really sound like a shill for the tobacco industry.

By: William of Occam

William of Occam — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:52:29 +0000

The effect of smoking in “relative risk” terms is strongest for lung cancer, that is to say that the ratio of the odds of lung cancer (the ratio) is highest for lung cancer. On the other hand, the effect of smoking that kills more people by far is the combination of smoking plus sedentary lifestyle plus obesity. For the latter, the relative risk is not all that high but the total mortality is far more substantial than for lung cancer. Ipso facto, I can’t wait for the genetic details on how sitting on your fat ass and smoking kills you. Lest you think I am joking, what, prithee, will the policy of governments be when we can predict who is susceptible to what disease from a gene scan? It is coming — and in your lifetime if you are under 50. BTW, as a Ph.D. statistician and epidemiologist, almost all those second-hand smoke studies are completely bogus though with the result reported here it may not matter since, after all, if there is a gene marker for lung disease for the primary smoker you can be double damned sure there is one for the second hand smoker.

By: CRNA

CRNA — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:54:28 +0000

As a certified registered nurse anesthetist I herewith request that all smokers please continue to smoke, and those trying to quit, don’t. That will give me continued job security.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:25:33 +0000

I wonder who actually was funding this study. Remember in 50s there was also a study saying smoking is good for you? As far as I know, I would rather be not smoking than take my chance with the lucky gene crap they came up with, that’ why I quit smoking a year ago.

By: walter

walter — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:56:06 +0000

To stay off my lawn

I can tell no one will have to worry about genetics affecting you. It’s obvious that your genes came right off the bottom of the gene pool.

By: recycled_christ

recycled_christ — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:31:19 +0000

What the hell! It’s still the same, if you dont smoke you die, if you smoke you die also…. So i’d better smoke!!!!

By: laurence

laurence — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:49:15 +0000

#12 a doctor may want to end smoking (perhaps by education?)but the implication is to do it by force, which is unlawful.
#13 a nonsmoker does not pay a smoker’s healthcare costs. If it did, that system would need changing regardless of the existence of tobacco.
#15 taxes? if the US is involved in healthcare(like hillary wants to be) it would violate the constitution. I dont think your taxes are used to treat smokers. If so, call your congressman.
#18 19 22 yeah what you said.