Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[AMDZen]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/asbestos

I never doubted that second hand smoke would increase the risk of cancer. See number 3 and number 6 on this list.

Number three clearly states that asbestos can cause lung cancer, among many other forms of cancer - and then lists Mesothelioma seperately. It says clear as day that Mesothelioma is the rarest form.

Number six says - "Smokers who are also exposed to asbestos have a greatly increased risk of lung cancer. "

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'm not saying that the smoking didn't help lead to the cancer, go back and read my posts if your going to deny it. I simply said that it was probably both things, and that they helped each other form the cancer. After reading this, and using simple logic - I can pretty much guarantee that the asbestos was at fault as well as the second hand smoke. I know doctors, they are not infallable, and I see them misdiagnose things every time I've seen one of them - for myself or for my family members. But hey, if you think blaming just the smoking is helpful in some way - go on and be ignorant.

 

[LeiZaK]

I am not Amused.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Codey Banks saves the day? Freddy Muniz FTW!

 

[nakedfrog]

Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

"Secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen (1). Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 35,000 heart disease deaths and 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers in the United States every year (2). Implementing policies that establish smoke-free environments is the most effective approach to reducing secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmokers"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

 

[Amused]

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

lol @ the turd sandwich shop owner
can we get a new custom title here? :laugh:

Amused wants to fight to the end because he knows he is right and he knows exactly what caused my father's cancer.

Amused, do you have a cure for the common cold. we are all waiting on that one.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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*

90% of both LCC and SCC cancers are tobacco related. You've proven nothing with that statement. All this proves is that there are far, FAR more smokers than people exposed to airborne asbestos on a daily, long term basis. NOT that smoking, much less ETS is more likely to cause cancer than airborne asbestos exposure.

The key here is to ask which is the larger risk for SCC, ETS or long term asbestos exposure in a factory setting in which the asbestos was airborne on a consistent basis?

The answer is obvious. Airborne asbestos exposure is a FAR greater risk than ETS.

And now back to the basics here. When challenged, your story changed no less than three times on how the drs supposedly ruled out asbestos as the cause of your father's cancer.

BTW, I'm not the one insulting people or calling people names.

 

[meltdown75]

haven't read this thread but i bet it sucks.

bad.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

lol @ the turd sandwich shop owner
can we get a new custom title here? :laugh:

Amused wants to fight to the end because he knows he is right and he knows exactly what caused my father's cancer.

Amused, do you have a cure for the common cold. we are all waiting on that one.

Mosh, he's wrong. And calling me names won't change that. When challenged you changed your story no less than three times. Calling me names won't change that either.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

lol @ the turd sandwich shop owner
can we get a new custom title here? :laugh:

Amused wants to fight to the end because he knows he is right and he knows exactly what caused my father's cancer.

Amused, do you have a cure for the common cold. we are all waiting on that one.

Mosh, he's wrong. And calling me names won't change that. When challenged you changed your story no less than three times. Calling me names won't change that either.

my story has not changed.

this is what you do: instead of debating with someone civilly you set out to make them look foolish and misconstrue what they have said. oh, you are a master at that, but we are onto you. you have done this time and time again.

i am surprised a businessman like yourself acts like such a punk on a messageboard. i guess that you have no other hobbies?
it's one thing to have an opinion on the original topic, but quite another to keep badgering me and telling me i or the oncologists don't know beans about what caused my father to die.


here the thing, try to absorb it, try hard, you can do it. my father's cancer was most likely caused from second hand smoke inhalation. does that mean it was *positively* caused by that? no.
but if we were to spin the wheel the chances are greater than cancerous agents present in cigarette smoke played a part more than any other cancerous agents on the list.

why do you need to persist with this? if second hand smoke didn't cause his cancer will it make you happy? what is your agenda for keeping this part of the discussion going?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
haven't read this thread but i bet it sucks.

bad.

it does suck.

bad.

this thread is way too long and has way to many nested quotes to expect anyone to read the whole thing.

the reason i am still hanging in here is because Amused is now telling us that a soon to be doctor on the board, my father's oncologists, and i, don't have a clue and he knows more than all of us combined because he did his research on the internet.

epitome of arrogance right there.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

lol @ the turd sandwich shop owner
can we get a new custom title here? :laugh:

Amused wants to fight to the end because he knows he is right and he knows exactly what caused my father's cancer.

Amused, do you have a cure for the common cold. we are all waiting on that one.

Mosh, he's wrong. And calling me names won't change that. When challenged you changed your story no less than three times. Calling me names won't change that either.

my story has not changed.

this is what you do: instead of debating with someone civilly you set out to make them look foolish and misconstrue what they have said. oh, you are a master at that, but we are onto you. you have done this time and time again.

i am surprised a businessman like yourself acts like such a punk on a messageboard. i guess that you have no other hobbies?
it's one thing to have an opinion on the original topic, but quite another to keep badgering me and telling me i or the oncologists don't know beans about what caused my father to die.


here the thing, try to absorb it, try hard, you can do it. my father's cancer was most likely caused from second hand smoke inhalation. does that mean it was *positively* caused by that? no.
but if we were to spin the wheel the chances are greater than cancerous agents present in cigarette smoke played a part more than any other cancerous agents on the list.

why do you need to persist with this? if second hand smoke didn't cause his cancer will it make you happy? what is your agenda for keeping this part of the discussion going?

Your story changed, Mosh... and started with the absurd claim that the drs told you the cancer could not have been caused by asbestos because it was not mesothelioma... an outright false statement, since only a minority of asbestos related cancers are mesothelioma.

Then you claimed a biopsy ruled out asbestos as the cause. Another impossibility.

Then you changed your story yet again and made the claim that the type of lung cancer he had could not have been caused by asbestos. Another factual error, as SCC is one of many cancers that can be caused by asbestos.

My agenda? None, other then pointing out obvious errors.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: meltdown75
haven't read this thread but i bet it sucks.

bad.

it does suck.

bad.

this thread is way too long and has way to many nested quotes to expect anyone to read the whole thing.

the reason i am still hanging in here is because Amused is now telling us that a soon to be doctor on the board, my father's oncologists, and i, don't have a clue and he knows more than all of us combined because he did his research on the internet.

epitome of arrogance right there.

lol. arguing on the internet...

btw, i'm impressed by the nest.

-- and now back to your regularly scheduled debate --

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

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.

Find me a website that states asbestos cannot be the cause of SCC.

Yeah... thought so.

This isn't a case of one website, it's a case of all websites that discuss both asbestos and SCC.

lol @ the turd sandwich shop owner
can we get a new custom title here? :laugh:

Amused wants to fight to the end because he knows he is right and he knows exactly what caused my father's cancer.

Amused, do you have a cure for the common cold. we are all waiting on that one.

Mosh, he's wrong. And calling me names won't change that. When challenged you changed your story no less than three times. Calling me names won't change that either.

my story has not changed.

this is what you do: instead of debating with someone civilly you set out to make them look foolish and misconstrue what they have said. oh, you are a master at that, but we are onto you. you have done this time and time again.

i am surprised a businessman like yourself acts like such a punk on a messageboard. i guess that you have no other hobbies?
it's one thing to have an opinion on the original topic, but quite another to keep badgering me and telling me i or the oncologists don't know beans about what caused my father to die.


here the thing, try to absorb it, try hard, you can do it. my father's cancer was most likely caused from second hand smoke inhalation. does that mean it was *positively* caused by that? no.
but if we were to spin the wheel the chances are greater than cancerous agents present in cigarette smoke played a part more than any other cancerous agents on the list.

why do you need to persist with this? if second hand smoke didn't cause his cancer will it make you happy? what is your agenda for keeping this part of the discussion going?

Your story changed, Mosh... and started with the absurd claim that the drs told you the cancer could not have been caused by asbestos because it was not mesothelioma... an outright false statement, since only a minority of asbestos related cancers are mesothelioma.

Then you claimed a biopsy ruled out asbestos as the cause. Another impossibility.

Then you changed your story yet again and made the claim that the type of lung cancer he had could not have been caused by asbestos. Another factual error, as SCC is one of many cancers that can be caused by asbestos.

My agenda? None, other then pointing out obvious errors.

why?

mesothelioma was mentioned as one of the asbestos related cancers. i said they told us the cancer was not a mesothelioma. yeh, so what? how does that change the story?

a biopsy can rule as to what cancer is present and cancers caused by asbestos are specific so they can tell with a biopsy. they were originally thinking asbestos was going to be the causative agent also, but that wasn't the case. how has my story changed there?

the docs reassured us that his cancer was not a result of asbestos exposure. i was ready to sue, although i didn't tell any of them that. how has my story changed there?

stop. just stop. let my father rest, and your pestering rest.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: meltdown75
haven't read this thread but i bet it sucks.

bad.

it does suck.

bad.

this thread is way too long and has way to many nested quotes to expect anyone to read the whole thing.

the reason i am still hanging in here is because Amused is now telling us that a soon to be doctor on the board, my father's oncologists, and i, don't have a clue and he knows more than all of us combined because he did his research on the internet.

epitome of arrogance right there.

lol. arguing on the internet...

btw, i'm impressed by the nest.

-- and now back to your regularly scheduled debate --

is it a debate when someone lives to point out errors that don't exist?
when someone doesn't want to accept facts because they belittle his original stance on the original topic?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

You aren't forced to go to a bar or restaurant, so it's all good.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Okay, let's take another approach...
'Public Health Has Won A Major Battle In Trenton'
Any real, hard stats on improved public health in cities that have already enacted this ban?

anyone want to take on the CDC with this statement?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5426a1.htm

also:
Study Finds N.Y. Smoking Ban Helping

"The saliva of the study's 32 participants was measured for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a marker of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Cotinine levels in participants declined by 78 percent within the first year after the law went into effect, according to the report."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=984227


and that's just from quick google searches. i don't have time to get more info. at the moment.

Those are great and all, but do nothing to show actual statistics of improved public health in cities that have joined the ban-wagon. You know, something with a "before" and "after" or something. Incidences of hospital visits for severe asthma attacks, pneumonia, something.

???

"declined 78%" = before and after.

that, in conjunction to the fact that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful to the human body, i think it's a no-brainer that the laws help public health. i think anyone can see that.

they should also ban tanning booths, long term exposure to them will cause cancer too. I think any one can see that.

i am not forced to get into a tanning booth when i'm in a bar or restaurant so it's all good.

You aren't forced to go to a bar or restaurant, so it's all good.

no, but i choose to, and that choice involves going to the bar/restaurant of my choosing without breathing in cigarette smoke.

the tanning booth analogy just isn't cutting it.
if you wanna call for a ban on tanning beds then by your reasoning you also should call for a total ban on cigarettes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits
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.

This is amusing. You're a brat kid mocking an established business owner while your little agenda in life is to be saddled with outrageous student debt and be a drug peddler for big pharma. And how many people do prescription drugs kill every year in the US? More than 100k. As many as alcohol, more than 2x as many as cars, 10x as many as illegal drugs, and more than 30x as many as ETS. But of course you see no hypocrisy. You're a brat kid -- "logic" is whatever you agree with, "illogic" is what you don't.

 

[Vic]

Yes, because everyone who walks into a bar to drink poisonous alcohol is completely surprised to find ETS. :roll:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
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.

This is amusing. You're a brat kid mocking an established business owner while your little agenda in life is to be saddled with outrageous student debt and be a drug peddler for big pharma. And how many people do prescription drugs kill every year in the US? More than 100k. As many as alcohol, more than 2x as many as cars, 10x as many as illegal drugs, and more than 30x as many as ETS. But of course you see no hypocrisy. You're a brat kid -- "logic" is whatever you agree with, "illogic" is what you don't.

Vic, take a chill pill. try and stick to topic instead of just sticking it.

who cares if Amused is "an established business owner". does that give him the right to mock me, and REAL doctors and try to come off that he knows more than we do?
being a "business owner" doesn't give him the right to act like he does on the board.