380,000 U.S. deaths yearly due to smoking

Jun 12, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WRVA-AM Richmond

Death attributable to smoking is declining, with 200,000 such deaths anually for U.S. men, and 180,000 for women, researchers said.

Comments
61 - 64 of 64 Comments Last updated Jul 24, 2012
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Jul 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
No Wonder doctors CAN'T claim smoking as a cause of death - Quite simply - it PROBABLY WASN'T!!
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
You will find that
at 80 years old - after having smoked "a pack a day for 62 years - your chances of being dead BECAUSE OF SMOKING - Are about about 27% higher than a NEVER SMOKERS CHANCES!
So, by your numbers, why do smokers have a 27% greater chance of being dead at 80 than nonsmokers? You're making it sound like smoking causes premature death...
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jul 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So, by your numbers, why do smokers have a 27% greater chance of being dead at 80 than nonsmokers? You're making it sound like smoking causes premature death...
First of all - I'm going to make you VERY HAPPY!

after reviewing the figures - I found a mis-calculation. instead of a 27% increase - it would actually be a 51% increase.

Again this is for an 80 year old - who has smoked a "Pack a day" for 62 years

As far as the rest of your question - COME ON - don't play so stupid - We have ALREADY agreed that smoking IS a risk for dying!- just like eating too much - drinking too much - unprotected sex - driving a car - flying in a plane - or just plain WAKING UP IN THE MORNING!- What I have shown you - using your OWN FAVORITE STUDY - which is also the largest, longest,(although not the best), study ever conducted - are the BLATANT LIES of the anti-smoking movement!- who claims that a smokers risk of dieing is 25 times that of a non-smokers (not even any reference to YEARS SMOKED)- just a "BLANKET" statement for ALL SMOKERS!

The truth is:
If a person starts smoking a pack a day at 18:

at 50 he has a 1.5% greater chance of dying "from smoking"
at 60 he has a 5% greater chance of dying "from smoking"
at 70 he has a 19% greater chance of dying "from smoking"
and at 80 he has a 51% greater chance of dying "from smoking"

None of the ACTUAL FIGURES come EVEN CLOSE to the 25 times (Which is the same as saying 2500%)

BTW - you still like to call it "PREMATURE" at 80 tears old????
Expected life span in the US today - is 79 years!!!!!!!- Maybe you live in Japan?- where the life span is 85???
another BTW - the Japanese smoke at about Twice the rate americans do!- strange huh??
Commonsenseman

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - that's what they found isn't it?
This is the VERY FIRST study that the anti's like to pull out - actually it's the foundation for the whole movement!
BUT - did you know that this study ALSO found that the smokers who INHALED the smoke actually had notably LESS lung cancers?
did you know - that of the women in the study - a full 1/3 of the lung cancer victims were NON SMOKERS?
I'd be interested in where the statement about who inhaled had less lung cancer came from. I don't see it in the stude cited.
Also, the study is of MALE doctors, so there aren't any women in the study.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Commonsenseman wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be interested in where the statement about who inhaled had less lung cancer came from. I don't see it in the stude cited.
SORRY for the confusion - it was NOT the "Doctors Study" - but the study they were in the middle of when they were "Devising" the doctors study - finished in late 1950 - found here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

and here are the statements:
"It would appear that lung-carcinoma patients
inhale slightly less often than other patients (X2 =4.58;
n=1; 0.02<P<0.05). However, the difference is not
large, and if the lung-carcinoma patients are compared
with all the other patients interviewed, and the necessary
allowance is made for sex and age, the difference becomes
insignificant (X2=.Il9; n=1; 0.50<P<0.70)."
(Yep!- just a LITTLE manipulation ALWAYS makes those figures fall into place!)

"and 19 out of 60 women with
carcinoma of the lung were non-smokers."
Commonsenseman wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, the study is of MALE doctors, so there aren't any women in the study
YES there WERE Women in the "Doctors Study" better read it closer!

In October 1951, the researchers wrote to all registered physicians in the United Kingdom, and obtained responses in two-thirds, 40,564 of them. 10,017 however related to men under the age of 35, and 6,158 to women of ALL AGES!
But they reasoned that Lung cancer is relatively uncommon in women - and rarely stikes under 35 so they only PUBLISHED data for 24,389 Males - Their LOGIC here seems REAL 'Fuzzy" - because in the study he concluded just the year befor he saw that almost 10% of Lung Cancer patients were women!
Gee - I wonder how THOSE OMMISSIONS could have "Skewed" the data??

Interesting Side Note here: of the 24,389 originals there were

148 SMOKERS that were 85 and older!
and ONLY 29 NON SMOKERS that age
ALSO there were 1,226 SMOKERS ages 74-84 - and only 164 NONSMOKERS in that bracket!

Average Life span in 1950 in the UK was 65 years - But these were Doctors - with Health care readily available - so lets give them 72 years!
So at the START of the study - 5.5% of the participants had already reached a POST MATURE age!(But those "SMOKERS who died - were CONSTANTLY refered to as "PREMATURE")

BTW - in 1950 82% of all men in the UK smoked - about 40% of all women
MAN!-according to the LIES OF THE ANTI's - with THAT MUCH SMOKING AND SHS going on - the UK SHOULDN'T EVEN EXIST right now!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A Study by Focus Autism Foundation Finds: CDC W... 5 hr ricDUH1399 19
'Anyone With A Brain' Realizes Gay People Shoul... Aug 19 Aspirin Between M... 8
Merck's shingles vaccine, Zostavax, recommended... (Jun '08) Aug 18 Susanna 75
Knee joint replacment surgery Aug 18 BossGirl 25
Sierra Leone's Ebola-hit Freetown is a city on ... Aug 18 Hannah 1
Livingston vaccinations below statewide rate Aug 17 Vaccines Cause Au... 1
Obama confers on Ebola with African leaders Aug 15 Deo Vindice 2

Search the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Forum:
•••