Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
And you've last all respect I would or every could have had for you by agreeing with his assinine statements. Maybe you should read what I said again, as long as the business owner isn't breaking any laws, he should have the right to choose. Hiring illegal immigrants for $.20 is illegal on a federal level, as is everything else he said. Smoking is not.

You cant make this circular reasoning up, you just cannot. Bravo! LOL

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Forcing business owners to do something, anything that deprives them of that business - assuming everything and everyone involved is lawful in their actions - is wrong.

Your absolutely unfailable idealogy has won me over. I'm a new man. Anything we tell private business owners to do is WRONG!

Tomorrow I'm opening ATOT's Tot Market. Activities we will engage in:

- Employing child labor, 16 hour shifts, at $.20/hr
- Storing toxic chemicals in unsealed containers on the back corner of our property near where kids play
- serving only white christian males and females who properly respect their master spouses and refer to minorities using racial slurs
- We will use a rusty toaster oven, our cold storage freezer will be moldy, and we will never clean or sanitize anything out of customer sight
- The entire building will be made of asbestos with no public warning signs.
- And oh yeah, we're moving next door to YOU, because zoning laws are completely WRONG. We're also gonna open a meat packing plant to cover our overhead.

Yep. I cant wait. Fvcking nanny staters!@!!

Text :roll:

You need to read that definition - you made the argument, not me.

I also love the reasoning "assuming everything and everyone involved is lawful in their actions" - uhhh it's illegal to smoke in restaurants now.

Excuse me? Are you really that stupid? No... don't answer that, I already know that you are. Pardon me while I go back to running my child labor sweatshop... :roll:

You're using circular logic and calling me stupid? :sigh: droll, simply droll.

In a few minutes, the absurdity of your mental mistake here is gonna hit you, and you're really gonna be pissed/embarassed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

 

[Kelemvor]

Lucky Bastards. Wish they'd ban smoking around here too. Kill yourself in your own homes... Don't take me with you.

 

[TheAdvocate]

All that the common, mildly interested person needs to know on this issue is that only the idealogue's oppose this ban (because of what some talking head told them on the radio).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't enter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Forcing business owners to do something, anything that deprives them of that business - assuming everything and everyone involved is lawful in their actions - is wrong.

Your absolutely unfailable idealogy has won me over. I'm a new man. Anything we tell private business owners to do is WRONG!

Tomorrow I'm opening ATOT's Tot Market. Activities we will engage in:

- Employing child labor, 16 hour shifts, at $.20/hr
- Storing toxic chemicals in unsealed containers on the back corner of our property near where kids play
- serving only white christian males and females who properly respect their master spouses and refer to minorities using racial slurs
- We will use a rusty toaster oven, our cold storage freezer will be moldy, and we will never clean or sanitize anything out of customer sight
- The entire building will be made of asbestos with no public warning signs.
- And oh yeah, we're moving next door to YOU, because zoning laws are completely WRONG. We're also gonna open a meat packing plant to cover our overhead.

Yep. I cant wait. Fvcking nanny staters!@!!

Text :roll:

You need to read that definition - you made the argument, not me.

I also love the reasoning "assuming everything and everyone involved is lawful in their actions" - uhhh it's illegal to smoke in restaurants now.

Excuse me? Are you really that stupid? No... don't answer that, I already know that you are. Pardon me while I go back to running my child labor sweatshop... :roll:

You're using circular logic and calling me stupid? :sigh: droll, simply droll.

In a few minutes, the absurdity of your mental mistake here is gonna hit you, and you're really gonna be pissed/embarassed.

Ah yes, the famous AT "I'm rubberband and you're glue" argument.

What you missed if that I did not use any circular logic. I have simply argued for choice instead of force, for voluntary no-smoking bars instead of draconian smoking bans. You, the fascist, love the use of force.

In a few minutes, the mental hypocrisy of all your doings with your fellow human beings is going to hit you, and you're going to bury it in a deep pile of self-denial lest you reveal to yourself what a cruel asshole you are.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't eneter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

i don't know why i am responding to you because you have really sickened me. yes, you have made me ill having to defend what the doctors told us like i am lying. :|

he had surgery to remove tumors in/on his lungs and they biopsied them. from those biopsies they determined without a doubt that asbestos did not start his cancer. we asked. we thought for sure asbestos was going to be the culprit.

my father was a guinea pig for the last 9 months of his life. lung surgery, brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, poke, prod, and prod some more. he lost all of his hair, his weight went down to skin and bones, and he never took a step forward towards any kind of cancer remission.

why, oh why, do you think they should've performed an autopsy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
All that the common, mildly interested person needs to know on this issue is that only the idealogue's oppose this ban (because of what some talking head told them on the radio).

I admit I do admire your ability to be a hypocritical prick. Obviously, you've spent a long time practicing it. Too bad you haven't spent a similar amount of time studying political science.


And with apologies and condolences to Mosh, her specific example is irrelevant. I've had a friend die in a car accident... should cars be banned? Even a basic understanding of actuarial science would teach that, given a large enough group and the inevitability of death, there is likelihood of any possible cause of death to occur for any possible reason.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't eneter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

i don't know why i am responding to you because you have really sickened me. yes, you have made me ill having to defend what the doctors told us like i am lying. :|

he had surgery to remove tumors in/on his lungs and they biopsied them. from those biopsies they determined without a doubt that asbestos did not start his cancer. we asked. we thought for sure asbestos was going to be the culprit.

my father was a guinea pig for the last 9 months of his life. lung surgery, brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, poke, prod, and prod some more. he lost all of his hair, his weight went down to skin and bones, and he never took a step forward towards any kind of cancer remission.

why, oh why do you think they should've performed and autopsy?

Because the cause cannot be determined without an autopsy.

You can play the victim card all you want in an attempt to hide the holes in your story, but these two points are obvious:

First you claimed that the doctors stated it could not have been the asbestos because it was not mesothelioma. This is untrue. Secondly, you claimed that biopsies showed it could not have been asbestos. This, again, is untrue. The scaring caused by asbestos is only seen when non-cancerous sections of the lung are examined. The cancer growths themselves would have hidden the scaring and made it impossible to tell.

In short, only an autopsy, or total lung removal would have been able to rule out asbestos as the cause.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Doctors are the be all end all then? Maybe you should talk to some other doctors without instantly taking a single doctors word for it. I promise you that amused is accurate, mesothelioma is the severe form of cancer caused only by the asbestos. But a lower asbestos intake could still cause lung cancer over time, and never form into the severity that is mesothelioma. Don't get me wrong, I respect your loss but your not being very logical with this. I can pretty much guarentee that second hand smoke can cause cancer, but I also know that cell phones can. Should we ban them? To believe that you have something putting out that strong of a signal right next to your ear without it causing cancer is pretty dumb if you ask me. But anything that emits micro-waves is already proven to cause cancer, its simply a fact. But only a small percentage of people will be that severely affected by it. In the same sense, smokers who believe they can inhale smoke all day without it affecting them are also illogical.

Like this last week, my dad was in the hospital because of some severe pain hes had the last few weeks. He's had lots of problems with this. The doctor in the ER comes up to him and tells him he needs is gall (sp?) bladder removed, and she's positive thats what his issue is. Except if she had bothered to pay more attention, she would have seen that he had already had it removed two years prior. Doctors are not infallable, medicine is not a science - and cancer is even worse when considering our limited understanding of it and all of the millions of things that cause it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
All that the common, mildly interested person needs to know on this issue is that only the idealogue's oppose this ban (because of what some talking head told them on the radio).

I admit I do admire your ability to be a hypocritical prick. Obviously, you've spent a long time practicing it. Too bad you haven't spent a similar amount of time studying political science.


And with apologies and condolences to Mosh, her specific example is irrelevant. I've had a friend die in a car accident... should cars be banned? Even a basic understanding of actuarial science would teach that, given a large enough group and the inevitability of death, there is likelihood of any possible cause of death to occur for any possible reason.

i am not going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

using my father as an example is very relevant. i only regret that it had to hit me so close to home.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't eneter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

i don't know why i am responding to you because you have really sickened me. yes, you have made me ill having to defend what the doctors told us like i am lying. :|

he had surgery to remove tumors in/on his lungs and they biopsied them. from those biopsies they determined without a doubt that asbestos did not start his cancer. we asked. we thought for sure asbestos was going to be the culprit.

my father was a guinea pig for the last 9 months of his life. lung surgery, brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, poke, prod, and prod some more. he lost all of his hair, his weight went down to skin and bones, and he never took a step forward towards any kind of cancer remission.

why, oh why do you think they should've performed and autopsy?

Because the cause cannot be determined without an autopsy.

You can play the victim card all you want in an attempt to hide the holes in your story, but these two points are obvious:

First you claimed that the doctors stated it could not have been the asbestos because it was not mesothelioma. This is untrue. Secondly, you claimed that biopsies showed it could not have been asbestos. This, again, is untrue. The scaring caused by asbestos is only seen when non-cancerous sections of the lung are examined. The cancer growths themselves would have hidden the scaring and made it impossible to tell.

In short, only an autopsy, or total lung removal would have been able to rule out asbestos as the cause.

you are very heartless, unreasonable and cruel i might add.

also, you are not a doctor so i don't feel you can trump what a doctor says just because you've read on some site on the internet and now feel you are an authority.

asbestos was ruled out. that is final. the doctor did what they had to do to determine this. they examined lung tissue.

please try to be human for once and stop digging your claws into someone who lost the most important man in her life to cancer.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
All that the common, mildly interested person needs to know on this issue is that only the idealogue's oppose this ban (because of what some talking head told them on the radio).

I admit I do admire your ability to be a hypocritical prick. Obviously, you've spent a long time practicing it. Too bad you haven't spent a similar amount of time studying political science.


And with apologies and condolences to Mosh, her specific example is irrelevant. I've had a friend die in a car accident... should cars be banned? Even a basic understanding of actuarial science would teach that, given a large enough group and the inevitability of death, there is likelihood of any possible cause of death to occur for any possible reason.

i am not going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

using my father as an example is very relevant. i only regret that it had to hit me so close to home.

Only to you, not to me or to anyone else. It is an emotional argument. What is relevant in considering this issue are the larger statistics, not the specific examples. These show, at worst case scenario, that less than 3k people die each from ETS (per ALA figures using known flawed EPA calculations) while more than 100k people die each from alcohol abuse (per AMA figures). And that we are STILL talking about smoking in bars, not anywhere else.
Like I said, a friend of mine died in a car accident -- should cars be banned? A friend of mine died just last year from brain cancer -- what scapegoat cause should I find for that in order to get a law passed? I can appreciate your grief, but that is no excuse for trying to spread it around.

 

[arcenite]

Good.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.[/quote]
did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

[/quote]

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.[/quote]
jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

[/quote]

Doctors are the be all end all then? Maybe you should talk to some other doctors without instantly taking a single doctors word for it. I promise you that amused is accurate, mesothelioma is the severe form of cancer caused only by the asbestos. But a lower asbestos intake could still cause lung cancer over time, and never form into the severity that is mesothelioma. Don't get me wrong, I respect your loss but your not being very logical with this. I can pretty much guarentee that second hand smoke can cause cancer, but I also know that cell phones can. Should we ban them? To believe that you have something putting out that strong of a signal right next to your ear without it causing cancer is pretty dumb if you ask me. But anything that emits micro-waves is already proven to cause cancer, its simply a fact. But only a small percentage of people will be that severely affected by it. In the same sense, smokers who believe they can inhale smoke all day without it affecting them are also illogical.

Like this last week, my dad was in the hospital because of some severe pain hes had the last few weeks. He's had lots of problems with this. The doctor in the ER comes up to him and tells him he needs is gall (sp?) bladder removed, and she's positive thats what his issue is. Except if she had bothered to pay more attention, she would have seen that he had already had it removed two years prior. Doctors are not infallable, medicine is not a science - and cancer is even worse when considering our limited understanding of it and all of the millions of things that cause it.[/quote]
we spoke to more than one doctor and at a top notch cancer treatment center i might add. we tried to get him the best treatment available.

why do you and Amused have to persist in saying that asbestos caused his cancer? you are just speculating for the sake of bringing me down. i was there for the 9 months of hell. you weren't, k?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't eneter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

i don't know why i am responding to you because you have really sickened me. yes, you have made me ill having to defend what the doctors told us like i am lying. :|

he had surgery to remove tumors in/on his lungs and they biopsied them. from those biopsies they determined without a doubt that asbestos did not start his cancer. we asked. we thought for sure asbestos was going to be the culprit.

my father was a guinea pig for the last 9 months of his life. lung surgery, brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, poke, prod, and prod some more. he lost all of his hair, his weight went down to skin and bones, and he never took a step forward towards any kind of cancer remission.

why, oh why do you think they should've performed and autopsy?

Because the cause cannot be determined without an autopsy.

You can play the victim card all you want in an attempt to hide the holes in your story, but these two points are obvious:

First you claimed that the doctors stated it could not have been the asbestos because it was not mesothelioma. This is untrue. Secondly, you claimed that biopsies showed it could not have been asbestos. This, again, is untrue. The scaring caused by asbestos is only seen when non-cancerous sections of the lung are examined. The cancer growths themselves would have hidden the scaring and made it impossible to tell.

In short, only an autopsy, or total lung removal would have been able to rule out asbestos as the cause.

you are very heartless, unreasonable and cruel i might add.

also, you are not a doctor so i don't feel you can trump what a doctor says just because you've read on some site on the internet and now feel you are an authority.

asbestos was ruled out. that is final. the doctor did what they had to do to determine this. they examined lung tissue.

please try to be human for once and stop digging your claws into someone who lost the most important man in her life to cancer.

Heartless? Bullsh!t. If you tell a story with factual errors and logical holes in it, I don't care what it's about I'm going to call you on it. Don't bring something into a debate unless you want it debated.

You still have yet to explain just how the Drs ruled out asbestos. Both attempts failed the credibility test. Mesothelioma is NOT the only, or main cancer caused by asbestos, and a tumor biopsy cannot rule out asbestos as the cause, much less determine any cause at all.

 

[TheAdvocate]

sooner or later, Vic's gonna realize that smoking in restaurants is illegal, so his qualifier is ridiculous.

Vic, those things are illegal because there's a law against them because they were bad and the evil nanny state had to put its foot down to stop them. You know, just like now. Trying to split hairs here is retarded.

I'll be the first to admit that Child Labor & Asbestos are far worse than smoking, but that doesn't make the latter ok. Meanwhile, i just kicked a hole big enough to drive a truck through in that stupid "nanny state=bad, private business=ALWAYS (key word) right" idealogy that you and amused blather on and on about, day after day. CHange the record already, this one's broken.

The idealogues ruin a good chance for practical debate. If you wanna protect a person's right to do something that has no negative effect on other's health, well being, and private enjoyment, then msg me and I'll take your side, 'cause it isn't about big govt or nanny staters or oppressed business owners, it's about the fact that one person's liberty doesnt trump another's. Unfortunately, when you smoke in a confined space where non smokers ferquent, you're putting your liberty to do so above their liberty to breathe/be healthy/not smell like ass. Even then, I'm willing to compromise with bars/night clubs etc as long as it stays out of eating establishments, but you ignore that. Instead, you blather on about mythical, idealized rights of business owners while ignoring the reality that they've been, for very practical and desirable reasons, limited for a long time now, and this is nothing new OR bad.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
All that the common, mildly interested person needs to know on this issue is that only the idealogue's oppose this ban (because of what some talking head told them on the radio).

I admit I do admire your ability to be a hypocritical prick. Obviously, you've spent a long time practicing it. Too bad you haven't spent a similar amount of time studying political science.


And with apologies and condolences to Mosh, her specific example is irrelevant. I've had a friend die in a car accident... should cars be banned? Even a basic understanding of actuarial science would teach that, given a large enough group and the inevitability of death, there is likelihood of any possible cause of death to occur for any possible reason.

i am not going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

using my father as an example is very relevant. i only regret that it had to hit me so close to home.

Only to you, not to me or to anyone else. It is an emotional argument. What is relevant in considering this issue are the larger statistics, not the specific examples. These show, at worst case scenario, that less than 3k people die each from ETS (per ALA figures using known flawed EPA calculations) while more than 100k people die each from alcohol abuse (per AMA figures). And that we are STILL talking about smoking in bars, not anywhere else.
Like I said, a friend of mine died in a car accident -- should cars be banned? A friend of mine died just last year from brain cancer -- what scapegoat cause should I find for that in order to get a law passed? I can appreciate your grief, but that is no excuse for trying to spread it around.

obviously you don't appreciate my grief, so don't play me that you do by stating that.

i am not buying your analogies of banning cars belonging in the same category as banning smoking from bars/restaurants. i see where you want to go with that, but it ain't flyin'.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

He's talking out of his arse. On average, a person inhales 1/10 of 1% to 1% of the smoke of a cigarette from second hand smoke

Shhh you are talking about scientific evidence...I am more concerned about the crap I inhale during my daily commute to work from car emmissions then any 2nd hand smoke I ever inhaled at a bar.

i haven't heard that scientific evidence. is there a non bias link to it?

I still haven't heard of a single person you have known to die of second hand smoke.

why are you repeating this? i answered that already. cancer kills those who smoke cigs just like it kills those who breath in unfiltered cig smoke.
my father died of cancer. he never smoked, but my mother smoked and he had relatives who smoked ALL THE TIME around him. he also hunted and played softball and hung out at bars all the time after those activities. can i prove that second hand smoke killed him? let's say the docs suggested it, and it cannot be proven that it was not the cause.
and don't you dare say anything derogatory about my father.

i even posted a link somewhere in this hellhole of a thread that showed a study that measured the difference in the amount of the chemical that is a precursor to cancer in workers blood compared to before and after the smoking ban went into effect. obviously it showed the workers were better off now.

what type of cancer did he die of?

it started in his lungs, and traveled to his brain and liver. he was gone in 9 months after his brain tumor was discovered.

So what did he do for a living? Are you simply avoiding my question on this? Are you sure he wasn't around asbestos or anything?

at first we wanted to think it was asbestos because he did work in the paper industry, but that is a very specific type of cancer, mesothelioma, and they plainly told us that was not the type he had.

Thats BS, I don't doubt that second hand smoke may have been a partial reason. Especially if he was around it that much. But assuming that asbestos didn't also play a part is assinine.

did you not read what i said? why would an oncologist lie? how do you think you are an authority on his cancer? i would rather asbestos caused it.
if you would educate yourself you will find that cancer from asbestos is very specific and easy to diagnose. asbestos did not cause his cancer.

There are two types of cancer caused by exposure to high levels of asbestos: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma. To say it could not have been the asbestos because the cancer was not mesothelioma is absurd.

jesuschrist Amused, the freakin oncologists told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos WAS NOT behind his cancer.

could you show some respect ever?!??!?!?!??!?!

Don't eneter his case into a debate unless you want it debated.

You stated that the oncologists said because it was not mesothelioma, it could not have been the asbestos. This is incorrect. Common lung cancer is the most likely cancer caused by asbestos. Mesothelioma is exclusive to asbestos, but NOT the most common type of cancer caused by it.

You metioned nothing of an autopsy. Was one performed?

i don't know why i am responding to you because you have really sickened me. yes, you have made me ill having to defend what the doctors told us like i am lying. :|

he had surgery to remove tumors in/on his lungs and they biopsied them. from those biopsies they determined without a doubt that asbestos did not start his cancer. we asked. we thought for sure asbestos was going to be the culprit.

my father was a guinea pig for the last 9 months of his life. lung surgery, brain surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, poke, prod, and prod some more. he lost all of his hair, his weight went down to skin and bones, and he never took a step forward towards any kind of cancer remission.

why, oh why do you think they should've performed and autopsy?

Because the cause cannot be determined without an autopsy.

You can play the victim card all you want in an attempt to hide the holes in your story, but these two points are obvious:

First you claimed that the doctors stated it could not have been the asbestos because it was not mesothelioma. This is untrue. Secondly, you claimed that biopsies showed it could not have been asbestos. This, again, is untrue. The scaring caused by asbestos is only seen when non-cancerous sections of the lung are examined. The cancer growths themselves would have hidden the scaring and made it impossible to tell.

In short, only an autopsy, or total lung removal would have been able to rule out asbestos as the cause.

you are very heartless, unreasonable and cruel i might add.

also, you are not a doctor so i don't feel you can trump what a doctor says just because you've read on some site on the internet and now feel you are an authority.

asbestos was ruled out. that is final. the doctor did what they had to do to determine this. they examined lung tissue.

please try to be human for once and stop digging your claws into someone who lost the most important man in her life to cancer.

Heartless? Bullsh!t. If you tell a story with factual errors and logical holes in it, I don't care what it's about I'm going to call you on it. Don't bring something into a debate unless you want it debated.

You still have yet to explain just how the Drs ruled out asbestos. Both attempts failed the credibility test. Mesothelioma is NOT the only, or main cancer caused by asbestos, and a tumor biopsy cannot rule out asbestos as the cause, much less determine any cause at all.

I FCKIN TOLD YOU ALREADY!!! they ruled out asbestos by removing portions of his lungs and biopsying them. what part of that don't you understand Dr. Amused?
would you like to have been there and saw the chunks of his lung tissue for yourself? maybe conducted the biopsy on them yourself? christ, you are impossible.

let me ask you? are you an oncologist? why do you think you are better able to diagnose my father than an oncologist? why do think if they told us in no uncertain terms that asbestos DID NOT cause his cancer that there still is a chance it did?

please stop. :|


also, i take offense to your wanting an autopsy performed on my father after death. he died as a result of the cancer. or do you believe that was a conspiracy theory too?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i am not buying your analogies of banning cars belonging in the same category as banning smoking from bars/restaurants. i see where you want to go with that, but it ain't flyin'.

And you're right to 'cause that's a flawed analogy he's using. Driving a car doesn't abridge another person's right to do so. But smoking indoors infringes another person's right to not smoke. Yeah, it really is that simple.