ABC News Anchor has Lung Cancer

[Guest guest]

You may have seen this news story online. This main thing that struck

me is that the leading cancer killer, lung cancer, is something most

people could prevent by not smoking. And, 4 out of 5 will die within

five years of diagnosis even with the medical profession's beloved

chemo treatment. I'm surprised that the doctor admitted that fact.

Probably the 5th person in the " 4 out of 5 " survey tried alternative

ways to heal themselves. If you know someone who smokes, please share

this story with them.

The news story presented on homepage:

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK - Jennings, who revealed he has lung cancer Tuesday,

plans to continue on " World News Tonight " as much as he can after

beginning chemotherapy next week.

Jennings, ABC's chief anchorman since 1983, planned to be at his desk

Tuesday — a day after getting his diagnosis.

A former smoker who quit several years ago, the 66-year-old anchor

was too ill to work Saturday during the network's special report on

Pope II's death. He hasn't been feeling well the past few

months, and didn't travel under doctor's orders after December's

tsunami because of what was described then as an upper respiratory

infection. He did go to Iraq in January for the elections.

" Almost 10 million Americans are living with cancer. I am sure I will

learn from them how to cope with the facts of life that none of us

anticipated. "

Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in the United States, and

roughly four out of five people diagnosed with the disease die within

five years, said Dr. Cliff Connery, chief of thoracic surgery at St.

Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan.

--------------------------------------

Sandy

[Guest guest]

>

> You may have seen this news story online. This main thing that struck

> me is that the leading cancer killer, lung cancer, is something most

> people could prevent by not smoking.

Yes, so we are told. However, America has the lowest rate of smoking

and the highest rate of cancer in the world.

Put this in your pipe...

Elena

[Guest guest]

Elena wrote:

> However, America has the lowest rate of smoking and the highest

rate of cancer in the world.

>

> Put this in your pipe...

Actually, Elena, the statistics based on the following Centers for

Disease website indicate that lung cancer in the U.S. is decreasing

as fewer people smoke. Try this in your pipe or pack. You sound as

though you are defending the habit of smoking.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics.htm

Lung Cancer Trends:

Lung cancer rates have been going down in the United States.

For men:

Lung cancer has been decreasing since the 1980s.

Deaths from lung cancer have been decreasing since the 1990s.

For women:

Lung cancer has only been decreasing since 1998.

Lung cancer death rates are not decreasing for women. However they

have been about the same since 1995.23

Decreases in lung cancer cases and death rates stem from reductions

in smoking patterns that began in the late 1970s for women, and

earlier for men. Programs and policies that discourage smoking are

vital to keep reducing the number of lung cancer cases and deaths.9,38

----------------------------------

Sandy

[Guest guest]

> Actually, Elena, the statistics based on the following Centers for

> Disease website indicate that lung cancer in the U.S. is decreasing

> as fewer people smoke.

Alas, not true. Lung cancer rates in women increased by -- how much

d'you reckon? -- 46% -- let me spell it out: forty-six percent, since

when do you think? -- 1998, let me spell this out too, in the past SIX

years. How does the " if you get lung cancer it's your fault " crowd go

about explaining this little oddball fact away? I'm sure we're not

looking at a sudden 46% increase in smoking habits in women in six

years, in ANY six years in history? so what gives?...

Lots and lots and LOTS of things, only things that aren't under a

private citizen's control at all, so they are a LOT less popular with

the brainwashing machine operators and public delusion/misinformation

manufacturers than the nicely packaged " if you get cancer it's your

fault " variety.

> You sound as

> though you are defending the habit of smoking.

Where exactly did you hear this sound? Since I didn't make it in my

post, I'd be really curious as to its source in your mind.

What I AM defending is a fully functional awareness. If it means that

from time to time, things one might accidentally become aware of

happen to clash, in a major way, with someone else's current belief

system, party line, indoctrination, conformist drives, or scientific

hypotheses (mistaken for " facts " throughout the history of science),

then I would defend my right to let my awareness take precedence over

all of the above. I was trying to make you (among others) aware of

something worth (in my humble opinion) a closer look. If you feel you

don't need to bother your awareness with too much reality in conflict

with an important faith installment of yours... as a Simon song

goes, " who am I to blow against the wind " ?

Best wishes,

Elena

[Guest guest]

One would think that statistics by the people most indebted to the Cancer

Industry would be meaningless.

To listen to the 'Industry' one would think cancer is being cured at every

turn because, they say, so many more people are alive with cancer today.

Especially those that have not died within the five year period most often

used in the past.

I did not think that anyone was trying to justify smoking but rather just

illustrating that there are probably other reasons for lung cancer besides

smoking. However, I would not put that in my pipe and smoke it.

Joe C.