Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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'.

You brought it up for the purpose of being emotional, so it doesn't surprise me that you are now defending it with emotion. I'm just calmly explaining to you that, using actuarial science, individuals die all the time for any possible reason, so specific individual examples are irrelevent when discussing general issues.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

 

[AMDZen]

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.

Even if it was second hand smoke that somehow is more powerful then the asbestos that you already admitted he was exposed to - which i don't believe was the sole reason but that doesn't matter. You need to get this through your head mosh. It was still your dad's fault, not the smokers that he hung out with - or the bar owners for allowing that smoking. My dad is going through lots of problems right now, cists (sp?) on his liver, gall bladder surgery and lately - pancreatitus. However, he needs to get his diet in check and eat less fatty foods and do the things he needs to do. If he dies from liver problems and pancreas problems, I know its his fault regardless of how much I love him. I'm not going to go sue Frito Lay, or get their chips banned.

I am a smoker - although I am not habitual and smoke about a pack a week or less, and a few more if I drink on the weekends. I downright hate to smoke indoors. I don't like it, I sit in the non smoking section at restaurants because I dont like it while I eat, and I try to avoid heavy smoker areas like bars and bowling alleys by restricting my time there. I don't smoke in my house, and I don't allow others to either. I don't smoke in my car or anywhere else. I go outside and I smoke. I really don't want to sound like an a$$hole but I don't really have a choice, your playing the victim card here as if your opinion is that much more important because of it. I happen to believe that Amused's opinion matters more as an actual business owner, but even that is irrelevant. THe fact is that I'm not worried about my rights as a smoker because it doesn't really affect me much, I'm concerned about the business owners rights because their not being given a choice. Maybe your dad should have asked your mom to smoke outside, I would have. Maybe he should have hung out less at the bars. Regardless of what I think, or what you might think of me for saying it - it wasnt the bar and restaurant owners fault, it was only your dads. And you ARE invading their (the business owners) rights by forcing your beliefs on them and giving them no choice in the matter.

 

[OutHouse]

colorado has a state wide smoking ban in the works. It has enough support that it will get passed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

But smoking indoors on private property does not infringe upon a person's right to leave and go to another indoor location. Yeah, it really is that simple.

You are amusing, the flawed way you argue. Like this: "Driving a car doesn't abridge another person's right to do so." Do so... what? You don't know. But phrasing it the way you did looked good, so that's all that mattered to you. Actually presenting a logical, reasonable, well-thought-out, non-partisan argument is never your intention. On point though, you driving a car actually does infringe upon my rights. You pollute the air, and pollution from vehicles causes more deaths than ETS. You endanger the right of others to travel safely, as far more people die in car accidents that from ETS. You're not going to get this though, as public safety is not the actual reason you support these smoking bans 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.

[/quote]

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]

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?[/quote]
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?


[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.


[/quote]

Even if it was second hand smoke that somehow is more powerful then the asbestos that you already admitted he was exposed to - which i don't believe was the sole reason but that doesn't matter. You need to get this through your head mosh. It was still your dad's fault, not the smokers that he hung out with - or the bar owners for allowing that smoking. My dad is going through lots of problems right now, cists (sp?) on his liver, gall bladder surgery and lately - pancreatitus. However, he needs to get his diet in check and eat less fatty foods and do the things he needs to do. If he dies from liver problems and pancreas problems, I know its his fault regardless of how much I love him. I'm not going to go sue Frito Lay, or get their chips banned.

I am a smoker - although I am not habitual and smoke about a pack a week or less, and a few more if I drink on the weekends. I downright hate to smoke indoors. I don't like it, I sit in the non smoking section at restaurants because I dont like it while I eat, and I try to avoid heavy smoker areas like bars and bowling alleys by restricting my time there. I don't smoke in my house, and I don't allow others to either. I don't smoke in my car or anywhere else. I go outside and I smoke. I really don't want to sound like an a$$hole but I don't really have a choice, your playing the victim card here as if your opinion is that much more important because of it. I happen to believe that Amused's opinion matters more as an actual business owner, but even that is irrelevant. Maybe your dad should have asked your mom to smoke outside, I would have. Maybe he should have hung out less at the bars. Regardless of what I think, or what you might think of me for saying it - it wasnt the bar and restaurant owners fault. And you ARE invading their rights by forcing your beliefs on them and giving them no choice in the matter.[/quote]
it is my dad's fault that he got cancer? wtf?

maybe my father didn't ask anyone to smoke outside or away from him because he didn't believe second hand smoke could be harmful to him. just like some people believe in this thread.

i am not blaming those around him who smoked. they had no idea it was dangerous either. i am saying that it is now affirmative to me that second hand smoke is dangerous and does cause cancer.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Citrix
colorado has a state wide smoking ban in the works. It has enough support that it will get passed.

More proof positive that mass franchise democracy is dangerous when not properly limited to the protection of individual rights. As long as any given special interest group is able to momentarily rally a majority to their specific cause, then the rights and freedoms of the people will become increasingly limited, one after another.

 

[moshquerade]

and believe me if there was one test or one doctor that said his cancer even had the slightest chance of being related to asbestos exposure i would be consulting with a lawyer.
that is how firmly i believe there is no case here.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

some people think they know more than doctors because they read information on the internet.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

some people think they know more than doctors because they read information on the internet.

we learned about it in school.... see, unlike amused, i'm studying to be a doctor and know what i'm talking about.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AMDZen

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.

Even if it was second hand smoke that somehow is more powerful then the asbestos that you already admitted he was exposed to - which i don't believe was the sole reason but that doesn't matter. You need to get this through your head mosh. It was still your dad's fault, not the smokers that he hung out with - or the bar owners for allowing that smoking. My dad is going through lots of problems right now, cists (sp?) on his liver, gall bladder surgery and lately - pancreatitus. However, he needs to get his diet in check and eat less fatty foods and do the things he needs to do. If he dies from liver problems and pancreas problems, I know its his fault regardless of how much I love him. I'm not going to go sue Frito Lay, or get their chips banned.

I am a smoker - although I am not habitual and smoke about a pack a week or less, and a few more if I drink on the weekends. I downright hate to smoke indoors. I don't like it, I sit in the non smoking section at restaurants because I dont like it while I eat, and I try to avoid heavy smoker areas like bars and bowling alleys by restricting my time there. I don't smoke in my house, and I don't allow others to either. I don't smoke in my car or anywhere else. I go outside and I smoke. I really don't want to sound like an a$$hole but I don't really have a choice, your playing the victim card here as if your opinion is that much more important because of it. I happen to believe that Amused's opinion matters more as an actual business owner, but even that is irrelevant. Maybe your dad should have asked your mom to smoke outside, I would have. Maybe he should have hung out less at the bars. Regardless of what I think, or what you might think of me for saying it - it wasnt the bar and restaurant owners fault. And you ARE invading their rights by forcing your beliefs on them and giving them no choice in the matter.

it is my dad's fault that he got cancer? wtf?

maybe my father didn't ask anyone to smoke outside or away from him because he didn't believe second hand smoke could be harmful to him. just like some people believe in this thread.

i am not blaming those around him who smoked. they had no idea it was dangerous either. i am saying that it is now affirmative to me that second hand smoke is dangerous and does cause cancer.

People that honestly claim no knowldege that the first hand or second hand smoke isn't harmful are full of sh!t. Period.

And how does that justify your right to vote away others' rights? So second hand smoke does cause cancer in very large quantities for some people, I could have told you that any way. Even if I lived 50 years ago when no studies had been done, I wouldn't sit there smoking a ciggerette and saying - you know, inhaling this doesn't seem harmful. Just look at a heavy smoker in the morning when they're coughing up mucus by the truck load and then ask them that question. THe fact of the matter, however, is that some people can smoke a pack a day for 50 years and never get cancer, or anything else. Others can get the cancer for smoking the way I smoke for 5 years.

There are LOTS of restaurants no matter where you live that dont allow smoking, and chances are more and more of them will do it all the time. I know pool halls in my area that don't allow smoking too, and bars. You just have to look for them, and you should if you feel it necessary. Its when you force it on everyone that there is a problem. You have no right to take away theirs.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
with the exception of casino floors.

For some reason I just noticed this. Don't ask me why since it was highlighted.

WTF is wrong with people though? You take every argument in this thread against smoking in a public place, and I never saw a mention of the hypocrisy above. Don't get me wrong, I didn't read anywhere close to the whole thread so it might be in there, but seriously. Why would it be ok in casinos then?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
with the exception of casino floors.

For some reason I just noticed this. Don't ask me why since it was highlighted.

WTF is wrong with people though? You take every argument in this thread against smoking in a public place, and I never saw a mention of the hypocrisy above. Don't get me wrong, I didn't read anywhere close to the whole thread so it might be in there, but seriously. Why would it be ok in casinos then?

Because casinos have enough money, and a strong enough lobby to force the exemption.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
with the exception of casino floors.

For some reason I just noticed this. Don't ask me why since it was highlighted.

WTF is wrong with people though? You take every argument in this thread against smoking in a public place, and I never saw a mention of the hypocrisy above. Don't get me wrong, I didn't read anywhere close to the whole thread so it might be in there, but seriously. Why would it be ok in casinos then?

Because casinos have enough money, and a strong enough lobby to force the exemption.

It was a rhetorical question, meant to prove the hypocrisy of the entire law, but thanks.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

i misread. i thought i read that it was a mesothelioma. it wasn't until i got a pm from mosh telling me that it was an small (oat) cell carcinoma and not a mesothelioma. this fact further determines the statement that he didn't develop cancer from exposure to asbestos because small cell carcinomas are almost always related to cigarette smoke.

also, mesotheliomas are not exclusive to asbestos exposure... it's strongly linked to it. however, the reason why i was saying that mosh's dad's form of mesothelioma wasn't caused by asbestos is because the doctor said it wasn't. it seems to me that they would have run various tests to determine it (primarily, a biopsy).

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
That's a valid point. I suppose it depends on how much regulation you believe is nesessary for a business. (and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron).

The number of bars that willingly forbid smoking on their premesis or created a separate place for it are so low when compared to the number that don't do anything for non-smokers, that the government felt it was nessesary to write a law.

Personally, I love the law, but it would be interesting to see a study on the corelation between drinking and smoking. If smokers are indeed in the minority (which I suspect), there really is no reason for everyone to be subjected to their smoke. (and if the # of smoke and smoke-free bars actually correlated with the # of smoking and non-smoking patrons, there wouldn't be a problem - or a need for regulation)


Just my .02

Really? Because voluntary non-smoking bars are everywhere around where I live. Maybe you fascists just didn't give them a chance and went for the law first. But then again, you bring up an example of a company that willfully violated already existing laws while discussing a lack of regulation, so what other choice do you give me but to assume that? (Besides that you might just be ignorant.) Personally, I think you just want non-smoking bar laws because you're chickensh!t and don't want your wife to know when you've snuck out to the nudie bar. What other reason would cause you to bring up majority-rules democracy while ignoring the property rights of others?

Actually this is a liberalist policy, as facists are really just ultra conservatives, whose main aim is for total non-intervention. So to your extremist view, it would be a communistic policy, not a facist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz
That's a valid point. I suppose it depends on how much regulation you believe is nesessary for a business. (and if you say no regulation is needed, just look at Enron).

The number of bars that willingly forbid smoking on their premesis or created a separate place for it are so low when compared to the number that don't do anything for non-smokers, that the government felt it was nessesary to write a law.

Personally, I love the law, but it would be interesting to see a study on the corelation between drinking and smoking. If smokers are indeed in the minority (which I suspect), there really is no reason for everyone to be subjected to their smoke. (and if the # of smoke and smoke-free bars actually correlated with the # of smoking and non-smoking patrons, there wouldn't be a problem - or a need for regulation)


Just my .02

Really? Because voluntary non-smoking bars are everywhere around where I live. Maybe you fascists just didn't give them a chance and went for the law first. But then again, you bring up an example of a company that willfully violated already existing laws while discussing a lack of regulation, so what other choice do you give me but to assume that? (Besides that you might just be ignorant.) Personally, I think you just want non-smoking bar laws because you're chickensh!t and don't want your wife to know when you've snuck out to the nudie bar. What other reason would cause you to bring up majority-rules democracy while ignoring the property rights of others?

Actually this is a liberalist policy, as facists are really just ultra conservatives, whose main aim is for total non-intervention. So to your extremist view, it would be a communistic policy, not a facist.

Wrong, fascism is an economically authoritarian agenda, and as such is leftist. Some people wrongly think that fascism is socially authoritarian only (and true, no smoking bans are a form of social authoritarianism), but the primary defining component of fascism is its economic authoritarianism, wherein the government controls the means of production but permits private ownership of the means to a cartel of an elite few (even Mussolini said it should rightly be called "corporatism" because it was the "merger of state and corporate power"). Fascism's original name was "Nationalist Socialism" but Mussolini re-named fascism from the fasces, rods bundled around an axe, which was an ancient Roman symbol of power, because he purposely and falsely wanted people to think that fascism was a right-wing agenda in order to differentiate it from Italy's socialist party at that time. In fact, if there is really any difference at all between modern fascism and modern socialism, it is only the fascism tends to be militaristic while socialism is more passively subversive. Otherwise, most modern "democratic" socialisms use fascist economic policies, i.e. government control of services provided by select private contractors, and the regulation of economic power into the hands of an elite few, which a few scraps thrown to the common public in bribery.

 

[AMDZen]

Vic - your my new hero. And I love the Heinlein quote, perfect for this thread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Vic - your my new hero. And I love the Heinlein quote, perfect for this thread.

Heh. What can I do? People seem to be so politically brainwashed these days. Fascism's "main aim is for total non-intervention"??? WTF? Yeah, I'm sure Hitler was thinking non-intervention when killed 11 million+ innocent civilians. :roll:
Talk about your inverted political perceptions. I swear, if Orwell had never lived, socialists would not be afraid to loudly proclaim that "Freedom is slavey!" while the fascists are proclaiming that "War is peace!" and the democrats (referred to believers of direct mass franchise democracy, not the American Democratic party) that "Ignorance is strength!"

*sigh*

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

i did not "screw the pooch". mesothelioma was mentioned as one possible type of asbestos related cancer. the docs noted he did not have that type nor any other type related to asbestos.

please stfu about my father and your unauthorized internet doctor wannabe diagnosis of his condition.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

i did not "screw the pooch". mesothelioma was mentioned as one possible type of asbestos related cancer. the docs noted he did not have that type nor any other type related to asbestos.

please stfu about my father and your unauthorized internet doctor wannabe diagnosis of his condition.

Um, both you and eits are again, wrong. Small cell carcinomas HAVE been linked to asbestos exposure. The fact that this is the cancer your father had rules out nothing at all. In fact, I can find NO source that claims asbestos will not cause SCC. On the contrary, most if not all sources list asbestos as a possible cause.

Again, claiming the doctors ruled out asbestos... and changing your story 3 times in an effort to back that story up would make ANYONE question you.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

i did not "screw the pooch". mesothelioma was mentioned as one possible type of asbestos related cancer. the docs noted he did not have that type nor any other type related to asbestos.

please stfu about my father and your unauthorized internet doctor wannabe diagnosis of his condition.

Um, both you and eits are again, wrong. Small cell carcinomas HAVE been linked to asbestos exposure. The fact that this is the cancer your father had rules out nothing at all. In fact, I can find NO source that claims asbestos will not cause SCC. On the contrary, most if not all sources list asbestos as a possible cause.

Again, claiming the doctors ruled out asbestos... and changing your story 3 times in an effort to back that story up would make ANYONE question you.

how are you going to tell me that i'm wrong? you're just a turd sandwich shop owner and i'm going to be a doctor.

all you did was find some website that says one thing contrary to everything else, and now you're a doctor? you're persistantly wrong.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

not true. they could have done a biopsy, sputum cytology exam, x-ray/ct scans to check for pleural plaque, tests for anthracosis, etc... most importantly, they would have taken his medical history to determine whether or not asbestos caused his certain case of mesothelioma.

also, different people have various carcinogenic threshholds. it is very likely that he got lung cancer due to 2nd-hand smoke. it's likely that he improper nerve flow to part of his lung, which caused a neoplasmic reaction which lead to a malignant cancer. it's likely that he had a genetic disposition.

however, the most likely scenario is that he had a low threshhold for certain carcinogens and years of 2nd-hand smoke caused his cancer.

by the way, if you think they can't tell that whether or not the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos by doing a biposy, you're mistaken. if you don't know from first hand experience, aren't going to be a doctor, or aren't already a doctor, don't talk.

Maybe you should READ the discussion before commenting on it?

It wasn't mesothelioma. That alone shows you were not paying attention.

Also, mesothelioma is, for all intents and purposes, EXCLUSIVE to asbestos exposure.

In this case, he had common lung cancer. To rule out asbestos in this case is IMPOSIBLE. To say it probably wasn't the cause would require an autopsy of the healthy lung tissue to find signs of asbestos scaring.

I may not be a doctor, but I know what, and how asbestos related diseases are diagnosed and determined. That info is VERY easy to find out.

Mosh screwed the pooch from her first posts on this subject when she claimed the doctors ruled out asbestos based on the fact that the cancer was not mesothelioma. It was all down hill from there.

i did not "screw the pooch". mesothelioma was mentioned as one possible type of asbestos related cancer. the docs noted he did not have that type nor any other type related to asbestos.

please stfu about my father and your unauthorized internet doctor wannabe diagnosis of his condition.

Um, both you and eits are again, wrong. Small cell carcinomas HAVE been linked to asbestos exposure. The fact that this is the cancer your father had rules out nothing at all. In fact, I can find NO source that claims asbestos will not cause SCC. On the contrary, most if not all sources list asbestos as a possible cause.

Again, claiming the doctors ruled out asbestos... and changing your story 3 times in an effort to back that story up would make ANYONE question you.

how are you going to tell me that i'm wrong? you're just a turd sandwich shop owner and i'm going to be a doctor.

all you did was find some website that says one thing contrary to everything else, and now you're a doctor? you're persistantly wrong.

Amused has issues. anyone who posts on this board soon finds that out. instead of trying to be a doctor he should be seeing one.

90% of small cell cancers are related to smoking. of course this hurts Amused immensely because all of his self righteous bitching suddenly looks ridiculous when the fact is my father's cancer is very likely to have come from smoke inhalation - SECOND HAND SMOKE INHALATION.

*waits for Amused and his ego to enter and insult me in anyway possible*