As a result of the statistical jiggery-pockery revealed yesterday, a thought came into my mind. I wondered what effect the fall in smoking prevalence over the last 50 years or so might have had on the prevalence of lung cancer. The problem is that it is not easy to get back very far in the Office of National Statistics records. But I managed to get back to the year 2000. They do have archives, but it is very messy indeed to retrieve the data that you want. Anyway, here are some figures.
I got the total number of deaths for the years 2000, 2006 and 2011. I also got the figures for the total number of cancer deaths for those years and the number of lung cancer deaths likewise. These are the figures:
Year…….Total deaths………..Cancers……………Lung cancers.
2000……535,000……………..134,700…………..29,500.
2006……502,000……………..139,000…………..29,300.
2011…….484,000………………143,300…………..30,150.
Look at the total of deaths. Over the twelve year period, total deaths have fallen, but the number of lung cancer deaths has risen.
Let’s amuse ourselves by calculation percentages:
Lung cancers as a percentage of total deaths:
Year…………LC deaths % of total deaths.
2000…………………5.5%.
2006………………..5.8%.
2011………………….6.2%.
So, over the period, total deaths have fallen, but more of those deaths are lung cancer deaths. How curious!
Let’s look at the lung cancer deaths as a proportion of all cancer deaths:
Year……….LC deaths % of cancer deaths.
2000……………..21.9%.
2006……………..21.0%.
2011………………21.0%.
We can even look at the percentage of all deaths which are from cancers:
Year………..All cancer deaths % of total deaths.
2000…………25.2%.
2006…………27.7%
2011………….29.6%.
Can it be reasonably said that cancer is caused by the failure of the repair mechanisms of the human body resulting from old age? And can it be reasonably said that the reason that some young people get cancer is because they age (as regards their repair mechanisms) prematurely?
———————
The above figures are FACTS, and not concoctions by Tobacco Control Psychopaths. But what do they show? They show that:
1. Deaths in general are being postponed.
2. More of those deaths are being caused by lung cancer.
3. The proportion of all cancer deaths which are lung cancers has remained pretty steady.
4. The actual number of lung cancer deaths has risen.
BUT WAIT!!!!
Isn’t lung cancer supposed to be caused by smoking? Smoking prevalence has been falling for decades, so why is lung cancer incidence increasing? Look at this:
[Click to enlarge]
[Thanks due to Chris Snowdon - Velvet Glove Iron Fist (see blogroll in sidebar)]
[Note that the first chart is up to age 59 and the second 60 +]
The first chart is the one which is of most interest to us, because it is that group (aged between 35 and 59) who are most likely to still be alive in 2011. Actually, it not very helpful really, because we do not know what age group between 35 and 59 was giving up smoking (or never starting), but we have to make do. So let us assume that it was the people around the age of 40 to 45 who were quitting in droves during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Those are the people who should NOT be getting lung cancers between the years 2000 and 2011, allowing for the delayed affect. (We must remember that Doll’s Doctors Study showed that the biggest difference between smokers and non-smokers occurred between about the ages 45 and 65)
How can it be that the people at risk, the smokers who gave up smoking in the 1960s, 70s and 80s or who never started smoking, are getting lung cancer just as much, if not more, over the last 12 years?
—————————–
TOBACCO CONTROL PSYCHOPATHS MUST EXPLAIN.
—————————–
It is a pity that it is so difficult to get ONS figures for earlier dates. I was trying to find out the situation regarding LC deaths in 1990 and 1980. They are there on the net, and I have the source, but the figures are difficult to get at because they are compiled into massive datasets which are difficult to unravel. I may try again, but I think that I have made the point adequately.
23/01/2013 at 09:44
Well done!! The simple fact is that cancer is basically an environmental disease, that can take hold when our immune systems are compromised (whether we are smokers or not). As 70% of the immune system resides in the bowel. it would seem logical that diet, food additives, water quality, etc. would play a huge part in keeping the immune system in good condition, so that cancer cells cannot take hold. Each of us, at this very minute, has cancer cells in our body – but each of us (smoker or not) does not eventually get cancer. This is a standard practice of the ‘science’ community: to latch on to one ‘scenario’ and blow it beyond proportion, neglecting the entire picture. And normally, that ‘scenario’ moves attention away from big business, government practices, etc., and directs it solely on the individual. In Ireland, statistically 47% of mains water is tainted and unsuitable to drink, yet people ingest this every day. Is the government concerned with providing healthy water to the population? No. Instead they decide that smoking in your car is a much bigger health hazard.
24/01/2013 at 00:10
Good points, JB, but we need not define the actual causes. The main point is that the reduction in smoking since the 1960s should have shown itself as a reduction in lung cancers some thirty years later as a year by year reduction. It has not.
23/01/2013 at 17:01
Cancer deaths might be increasing because cancer is an old age disease and there are more olde citizens.
Lower total death numbers might be due to better health care for younger people or fewer auto deaths or whatever.
Here are American lung cancer stats for you.
Over the last 60 years, as the adult smoking rates have declined by about 50%, the lung cancer incidence rate has increased by 640%.
Death rate has increased by about 425%.
Senior citizen rates have not increased by that same large amounts.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022160.htm
Mortality Trends for Selected Smoking-Related Cancers and Breast Cancer — United States, 1950-1990
TABLE 1. Age-adjusted death rates * for selected smoking-related cancers, by sex and
race + — United States, selected years, 1950-1990(per 100,000)
Total – Lung
1950 = 13/100,000 (Incidence Rate = 13/100,000)
1860 = 21
1970 = 32.
1980 = 42.
1990 = 50.3/100,000
(From another source)
2010 = 68.4/100,000(Incidence Rate = 96.7/100,000)
23/01/2013 at 17:23
From the US govt;
In 1950, 8% of the population was over the age of 65.
That is 8,000/100,000
In 2010, 13% were over the age of 65.
13,000/100,000
That is about a 61% increase as compared to the 640% increase in lung cancer incidence!
24/01/2013 at 00:57
But the whole point, Gary, is that lung cancer is caused by smoking according to the zealots. According to Doll, LCs were almost non-existent among non-smokers, but very prevalent among smokers, especially heavy smokers by a huge proportion. But that conclusion could only be sustained by the entirely artificial hypothesis that there was a decades-long delayed effect.
But, as can be seen from the graphs which I got from VGIF, smoking has been steadily declining since 1950. Therefore, from about 1980, lung cancer deaths should also have started to decline steadily. Did they do so?
But, more importantly, the period from 2000 to 2012 should have shown a very pronounce decline, since the ‘delayed effect’ should be petering out. It seems not to be so.
It is not for us to surmise what the reason for the lack of a decline is. It is for Tobacco Control Zealots to explain.
That is my whole point.
24/01/2013 at 12:38
The widespread application of mineral fertilisers, made from radioactive apatite, are the cause of lung cancer in smokers of commercial tobacco.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15
This has been known since the early sixties, at least, but has been kept very hush-hush.
Compare the statistics on deaths from lung cancer from, say the UK or the US, with those from France, where natural brands such as Gauloises are widely smoked… and nearly everyone smokes!
The French seem less susceptible. Strange eh?
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/168.full
25/01/2013 at 01:18
The first chart in the second link is interesting. I have saved it for future examination.
Thanks for the link.
24/01/2013 at 17:20
According to Doll, LCs were almost non-existent among non-smokers, but very prevalent among smokers,
………………………………
Roughly speaking, there were about 3.3 million male smokers in the London area in 1950.
Doll found about 700 smokers with lung cancer.
That is a rate of about 21/100,000 or 2/100ths of 1%.
In the CDC link I posted above, the American CDC shows a 1950 lung cancer rate for men of 21.9/100,000 or 2.2/100ths of 1%.
Doll does not mention that minor, to him, point.
24/01/2013 at 17:43
Meant to say:
2/100ths of 1% is very rare, not prevalent.
Doll does not mention that minor, to him, point.
The huge increase in lung cancer post 1950 is not related to American smoking rates.
Cigarette smoking in the USA
http://www.pnlee.co.uk/ISS.htm
Web Edition
Countries S-Y
United States(pdf)
Table 4M Prevalence of smoking, males: selected surveys by age, 1935-2005 ……………….page 18
1935 = 53%
1947 = 64%
1955 = 52%
Additional information (not presented in tables) page 57
Howe (1984) and US Surgeon General (1980) quoting the Milwaukee Journal presented data from an annual survey in the Greater Milwaukee area, of adult (age 18+) men from
1923 and also of women from 1934.
. The prevalence of cigarette smoking was as follows (selected years, mostly read from graph):
Males… Females
1923… 51.8
1930…. 57
1934.. 61.. 16.7
1935 ..62.5… 20
1940.. 64… 27
1945.. 66.. 32
1948 67.1.. 38
1950.. 65.. 38
1953.. 69.. 42.9
1955.. 69… 43
1958.. 73.. 45.4
1960.. 63.. 50
1965.. 54.. 45
1970.. 38.. 36
25/01/2013 at 01:23
The final three figures….
The fall in cig smoking in that decade (1960 to 70) is astonishing. I find it hard to believe.
25/01/2013 at 01:01
Today’s anti smoking headline was (and it has come up before) that more women are getting lung cancer. This of course, (according to the ‘experts’) is something to do with more women smoking since the 1960′s. ?????????
Yes of course, I forgot, lung cancer is the smoking disease. Nothing to do with the incredible fallout from nuclear tests in the 1950′s. Nothing to do with other nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. Nothing to do with the multitudinous increase in diesel fumes from commercial road transport.
25/01/2013 at 01:42
Looking at Gary’s figures for the USA, it seems that female smoking started to decrease from around 1960! But I do not know whether that is true of the UK.
People have been smoking for centuries. Doll linked smoking and LC only for cigarettes. What is the difference between pipe, cigar and snuff tobacco and cigarette tobacco? The paper tube, I suppose. So what carcinogens are in the paper?
The more you look into these things, the flimsier the Zealot’s evidence that tobacco is the problem gets. Or rather, that tobacco is the only problem.
25/01/2013 at 14:26
“Yesterday was another blog record for views! The odd thing is that there is no apparent reason.”
I think there is a good reason Junican! – This information is game-changing and I think your extra views are from the tobacco CONTROL industry who are aware that this is a threat to their agenda. They want to know what we know and then find ways of countering. As you know, this is no longer about improving health but ultimately, tobacco prohibition and criminalisation of smokers. I have no doubt they will try to find ways around it, suppress it or just ignore it as they have done with the SHS deception by just continuing to repeat their ‘SHS & smoking kills’ etc. slogans. It is up to us to make sure they do not get away with it by ensuring this information is widely and regularly disseminated to the public.
The increase in cancers/ reduction in smokers corroborates this;
http://lungcancer.about.com/b/2012/11/29/why-anti-smoking-campaigns-arent-enough-to-eliminate-lung-cancer-deaths.htm
26/01/2013 at 01:27
I’ve read that link before, Kin. It was clearly a heartfelt plea for research into lung cancer rather than into smoking as a cause of lung cancer.
The chickens are gradually coming home to roost.
But if it is true that the drastic reduction of smoking has not impacted on LC, it suggests that the Doll Doctors Study was a massive fraud.
25/01/2013 at 14:52
re. Acet’s comment re the Uni of California anti-smoker propaganda piece on radiation in tobacco (ie. propagating ‘radio-phobia’):
I believe Michael McFadden has de-bunked the claim that polonium-210 is harmful in tobacco in terms of dose and safe levels.
According to Spencer et al 1977, traces of Polonium-210 can be found in many plants and foods and consequently, in human tissues as well. The principal resource of natural Po-210 is food, 77.3% of the daily Po-210 intake of an adult male comes from food, 17.4% from inhaling cigarette smoke, 4.7% from water, and 0.6% from air. (Spencer et al. 1977)
There is some very interesting information, with references, about ‘Radiation Hormesis’ in the comments section of this story (it’s about radiation in brazil nuts, but this can also relate to the radiation in tobacco)
http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1358048
“Despite the fact that high doses of ionizing radiation are detrimental, substantial data from both humans and experimental animals show that biologic functions are stimulated by low dose radiation”
(low doses of radiation can have a preventative effect for cancers etc)
26/01/2013 at 01:32
I understand acet’s concerns, but I also think that some people are more susceptible than others. That may be a major failure of tobacco control research, which was a complaint of Fisher – the researchers are looking for the same thing.
27/01/2013 at 12:16
Fair enough fellas, believe what you like, Spencer et al 1977 are obviously gentlemen of the utmost integrity and should be followed blindly, lol.
I base my observations on personal experience and have known for decades that the commercial tobacco sold in this country is seriously bad for my health. Granted, I probably fall into the heavy smoker category, and as Junican rightly says, am therefore ‘more susceptible’.
When I left these shores in my early twenties, my hair was starting to fall out. Settled in my new life on the continent, the hair loss stopped. It was obvious to me that it was due to the difference in tobacco.
Upon my recent return, I discover that the local stuff not only smells and tastes repellent, but when I try to smoke it, my fingers start turning blue.
Make of that what you will, but I assure you, it comes from the heart with no political agenda attached.
27/01/2013 at 12:30
Curious as to the different continents. I am originally from the US, and now live in Ireland. When I smoke American cigs here, everyone complains about the stink of them. I also started getting a cough, but when I smoke EU cigs, that cough disappears (although now, with the wonderful FSC cigs and all that cr*p they put on the rolling paper to save those 5,000 or so people that die because they have fallen asleep with a lit cigarette – at the expense of millions of others who now complain about the FSC cigarettes, my cough has returned. Hence I am rolling my own with tubes – no carpet glue on the papers, no cough). Speaking of FSC cigarettes, considering that tobacco companies put chemicals into the tobacco to keep it burning, apparently, would it not have been more sensible just to remove those chemicals, rather than adding even more to the paper?
27/01/2013 at 15:43
I have been using my own stuff predominantly now for about six weeks. I noticed the other day that I seem to be producing less phlegm than I used to. But, of course, like tobacco Control statistics, what I am observing is a ‘correlation’ and not necessarily a ’cause and effect’!
27/01/2013 at 19:57
JB, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The Anglo-American corporate machine have been carrying out this population control agenda on their own people for a lot longer than other nations have.
I seem to remember a case where the US was threatening bullying tactics, sanctions etc, on little Taiwan, because the Taiwanese refused to allow polonium cigs to be foisted on their people.
In another case, a Czechoslovakian, minister revealed to the press that a big tobacco exec from the US had intimated that allowing his dodgy cigs into Czechoslovakia would save them a fortune in pension payouts.
Obviously things have now changed and the EU can not be trusted to do right by their people, hence the FSC nonsense. Not only is it on the paper of tailor-mades, but they are spraying some godforsaken concoction on the hand-rolling tobacco as well.
I am afraid there is something more sinister afoot than merely trying to prevent alcoholics and junkies from setting their beds alight.
25/01/2013 at 21:19
“The fall in cig smoking in that decade (1960 to 70) is astonishing. I find it hard to believe.”
Nooo, not really.
The numbers are a percent of adults.
Post war, from 1945 to the early 50′s, there were a lot of babies born.
Starting in the early 60′s, there were a lot more than normal new adults(18+) than normal.
There has been no steady rise in the percent of adults smoking, up to the time that percentage started to decrease.
1935 = 41.25%.
1950 = 51.5%.
1965 = 42.4%.
1980 = 33.2%.
2000 = 23.3%.
The actual number of smokers has remain rather constant.
1950 = about 50 million.
2010 = about 46 million.
The population increased from about 150 million to about 300 million; thus doubling the number of adults and halving the percentage of smokers.
Tc claims they are hurting the tobacco companies; but, the big tobacco’s consumer base has stayed very constant or increasing.
The increase comes from there being about 16 million ex-smokers in the 60′s and about 48 million today.
25/01/2013 at 22:18
Just a thought.
If smokers’ lung cancers increase with a 20 year lag behind smoking rates, what are never-smokers’ rates lagging behind.
They have mostly gotten about 20% of the lung cancers and; oddly enough, the get lung cancer at the same age as current smokers!
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/472
RESULTS
Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).
26/01/2013 at 01:47
Everything becomes more complex by the day. No wonder the Tobacco Control Industry becomes more hysterical by the day!