Comments on: Deadly Genetic Link To Smoking, Cancer

Scientists: "Double Whammy" Gene Boosts Lung Cancer Risk 80%, Makes It Harder To Quit

[fibonacci_]

barbaraf4, I consider myself to be a highly intelligent person. And I started smoking marijuana when I was 14 years old. I have scored in the 98th percentile on an IQ-test and I do not believe in any religion.

[bozworth4]

We KNOW what causes it!!! Fix it!!! My life expectancy is 2 years overdue. I smoke, drive, firefighter, carry a gun, talk on cell phone. I guess what saves me is the fact I don''t drink! Oh and by the way, politicians beware, I also vote.

[barbaraf4]

"Smoke marijuana - it last longer and is probably not as deadly." Posted by fibonacci
~~~~~~~~~~~
It makes you stupid.

[generey]

Well, for what it is worth, as I sit here smoking, I am scheduled, AGAIN, for surgery next Tuesday to cut out two MORE malignant tumor''s from my bladder. This is the third time for me. The first time, I saw the inside of my bladder in a pic the doc did; it was thick yellow...nothing but nicotene. My cancer is from nothing but cigarettes...yet I still smoke. Duh 4 me I know...it''s the hardest thing I have ever tried to stop doing & still have not slowed down. Nobody''s fault but my own, but people...if ya dont smoke yet - DONT START.

[gronamox-2009]

Could we stop funding these interminable and useless smoking studies and their obvious linkage to lung cancer. Whoever doesn''t understand it yet, raise your hand. Okay, go home and don''t come back. Now, here''s a message from the American Citizenry who is gauged by Insurance Companies for premiums that are worthless because if they can find a way to deny coverage, Big Insurance will happily smile while you die. "Hey researchers,cure cancer already, you clueless jackasses. For over sixty years you know nothings haven''t cured anything. You waste so much time and money, that no one believes medicine is anything more than mumbo jumbo. Everyone still dies of heart disease and cancer. Now we have Aids and it too will never be cured along with a host of completely misunderstood fatal diseases that modern medicine hasn''t even touched. The present day cure for cancer is to kill the diseased cells with poisons so toxic, few survive w/o chronic damage. Pills do nothing. Surgery is a touch and go risk, riddled with malpractice. If you aren''t dumped on the floor by the service staff who hates you, or given the wrong meds or have the wrong organ removed, the Hospital is so infectious and dirty that you will catch a disease far deadlier than the won you were dying from.

[goldesprit]

This story exists because:

1) by distancing cigarettes from blame-- "its your genes!" the big companies (not just tobacco-- but people who "cure" cancer, and / or ...REPORT ABOUT THIS STUFF AND SELL ADVERTISING--LIKE cbs AND a.p...)CAN CONTINUE MAKING MORE MONEY.

2) if its your genes-- you can feel better in the "knowledge" that you "can''t quit" (because you are doomed at birth presumeably)and then give up trying--and ...buy more cigarettes.

My mother died from emphazima caused by smoking.

Her father died of same.

By older brother died of same.

If my younger brother, who smokes, has a similar fate... as the Godfather says,
"...I''m going to blame somebody."

[fibonacci_]

Smoke marijuana - it last longer and is probably not as deadly.

[dzapple]

WHY DONT THESE Scientists WORK ON HOW TO GET BETTER GAS MILEAGE INSTEAD OF DOING STUDIES OF SMOKERS AND CANCER. IF PEOPLE SMOKE THEY WILL SMOKE AND IF THEY DONT SMOKE THEY HAVE A LESS CHANCE OF GETTING LUNG CANCER

[generey]

Let me finish by pointing out that there is no DIRECT condemnation of tobacco in Christian history prior to the Anabaptists of the 1500s, the verse in 1 Corinthians that''''s used as an INDIRECT condemnation of tobacco being understood as not including tobacco prior to the Anabaptists.

Posted by denn034 at 05:32 PM : Apr 02, 2008

Huh?

[savlove-2009]

Perhaps sexual addiction has a similar genetic link

[savlove-2009]

Perhaps sexual addiction has gentetic links

[denn034]

Yet, people insist upon having absolutely no compassion for those like this smoker that suffers from genetically-based addictions. Yet, they keep passing laws excluding us smokers from this or that. Yet, California excludes smokers and embraces marijuana users despite the fact that marijuana''s second-hand smoke kills as well. Let me finish by pointing out that there is no DIRECT condemnation of tobacco in Christian history prior to the Anabaptists of the 1500s, the verse in 1 Corinthians that''s used as an INDIRECT condemnation of tobacco being understood as not including tobacco prior to the Anabaptists. Yet, non-tobacco users have absolutely no compassion or empathy for us genetically-addicted smokers and they think they''re good, fine, and decent people doing it as well. They''re nothing of the sort!

[jyates99]

what if i smoke while talking on my cell phone??

[fibonacci_]

Smoke em if you got em.

Actually, I would recommend smoking weed.

[generey]

Why is it that EVERYTHING is Gene''s fault?

[dwledet]

NOLALOU posted *** at 02:50PM on 4/02.

The statement, "There is no doubt that smoking causes cancer..." is a total fabrication.

NO ONE knows what causes cancer.

Cancer has been observed in high concentrations in people who smoke.

This does not indicate that "smoking causes cancer".

If everyone who smokes gets cancer, that might indicate that "smoking causes cancer", BUT most people who smoke DONOT get cancer. That is FACT.

Doug

[pensacola88]

Unlocking the human genome has scientific value, but does it bring us closer to accepting things that we can''t change?

Just a few months ago, science contradicted something by disproving something it previously proved - that a bullet can be traced to a specific gun or rifle which fired it. For years, we accepted this type of evidence and convicted many. Then recently, we disproved the reliability of that type of evidence. I wonder how many people were convicted wrongfully over it.

Trusting science too much leaves plenty of room for rationalizing. We can connect dots and form conclusions, but whether it is absolute and correct leaves great doubt. There is too much junk science out there.

[mklee06]

The person that made the comment as to whether it would be preferable to cough up a lung or lose your mind from brain cancer has obviously never seen someone dying of lung cancer. My mother was diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 52. At stage four, the cancer had spread to every part of her body including her brain. I am curious to see the outcomes of future studies. My grandfather smoked and two of his three children became smokers. My mother died and my aunt is still smoking away in her mid 60''s. My grandfather quit in his 50''s after smoking for 40 years. He lived to be 86. I also became a smoker for a period of time. I quit when my mother died. It was extremely hard but watching her suffer as she did was a strong incentive. It has been 8 years. I must also note that my father and his parents were also smokers. Although all three are dead ,none died of cancer. I''m not sure where this leaves me. To all the smokers out there please quit for yourself and your family. Not all cancers are preventable but in this case you can do everything in your power to try and stop it. It will be physically painful for you if you get lung cancer and it will be emotionally painful for your family to watch you die this way.

[crater7]

SCIENTIST HAVE PROVEN THAT SMOKING TOBACCO IS DANGEOUS AND CAUSES CANCER, THEREFORE RESULTING IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

WHY DON''T OUR GOVERNMENT JUST OUTLAW CIGARETTES, AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS? AND THE LOBBYIST WHO PEDDLE THIS DEADLY PRODUCTS.

HMMMMM, NO MORE KICK BACKS.

GOD "BLESS" AMERICA. NOT " G D AMERICA."

[swwils]

Science is always coming up with something about cancer,but they can''t seem to find a cure.I smoke ,and so did my Grandfather ,who lived to be 101,I don''t want to live that long.Life is one time I enjoy a smoke now and then so I will continue,know matter what these scientist supposedly find out.