Slashdot Mirror

No study has ever produced strong evidence that second-hand smoke carries health effects; all which have suggested such have been refuted.

According to you. However, Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke; The International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) has classified second-hand smoke as a known carcinogen and many other credible references. Blowing out your ass.

The Canadian Cancer Society posted this in August 2008:

"In early 2007, University of Alberta researchers published results of a study about DCA (dichloroacetate) stating that the agent showed promise in shrinking tumours in laboratory rats and human cell lines (human cells grown in a petri dish).

While the results were hopeful, the research was in its earliest stages and had been done on animals only.

The Society has concerns about Canadians with cancer seeking DCA before any clinical trials had been done on humans to test its effectiveness on cancer patients. DCA has been shown to have potentially dangerous side effects when used for non cancer-related conditions.

The Canadian Cancer Society welcomed the news in September 2007 of Health Canada's approval for the first human clinical trial about DCA. This is an important first step in testing this agent for use in cancer patients. We look forward to the results of the trial, which is being led by researchers at the University of Alberta .

Until these clinical trials are finished, we can't advise cancer patients in the general population to use the agent.

Key issues that need to be determined through a clinical trial include:

Is it effective in shrinking tumours?
Can DCA be used safely in cancer patients at doses needed for effectiveness.
Are there critical doses or methods of administration to achieve anti-cancer effects.
The Canadian Cancer Society is currently funding hundreds of other encouraging cancer-fighting research projects."

According to the Wikipedia article:

In a 2005 audit by KPMG, the Canadian Cancer Society reported a revenue of $150,718,000 CAD. A breakdown of disbursements shows 28% of the Society's revenues going to fund research, 17% to provide support for people living with cancer, 7% to pay for information campaigns, 6% to fund prevention, and 2% to provide advocacy. Fundraising consumes 27% of the Society's revenue, and 6% is given over to management costs.

>> It also raises the question of where all the money donated to Canadian and other cancer societies, and especially the billions spent buying merchandise with little pink ribbons on it goes, if not to actual cancer research like this."

Answer:
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

The Canadian Cancer Society publishes financial statements, which can be found here:

http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20us/CW-Financial%20statements.aspx?sc_lang=en

I'll skip the analysis, but if you take a look, they break down their revenue by sources and their expenditures by type. They also show what assets they have and so on. In other words, they show all the typical stuff required for financial statements. It'd be interesting to do an full analysis, but even though I'm a business major I am not an accountant.

"And no one knows why cancer rates have increased so much in the last few years."

I don't like feeding anonymous trolls, but I will this time round. It's most likely exposure to pollutants and various chemicals from our industrial developments, cars, and consumer products.

I blame the bioaccumulation of dioxins.

And in response to your horseshit comment about cancer rates increasing so much over the last few years. I'll give one example of why cancer rates have NOT increased, and that's breast cancer.

"Incidence and death rates for breast cancer have declined since 1969 in women aged 20-39."

And if you have allergies to detergents and other artificial things, are you saying you don't have allergies to ragweed, grass, pollen, and whatever else nature throws at you?

...where we believe that governments have a responsibility to set policy for, and even fund, public health initiatives that are not necessarily advantageous to any given industry sector or corporation.

The research in question was funded by a Canadian federal government agency, and I'm certain that one or two well-funded, non-profit and/or public sector agencies will step up to the plate to study whether the proposed treatment is safe, and if so, some smart non-intellectual-property-driven and yet profitable organization will market it.

Well I know for a fact that the health unit in the county that I work for has smoking cessation groups already. I've heard recently about the free patches and nicotine supplements just recently, so that could still not happen. But it sounded pretty certain, so who knows.

And I did some looking on that 13% statistic. I believe that figure was for teens. As I found this and it looks like we'll have to meet in the middle. It claims 20% of Ontarians ages 15 and up are smokers as of 2003.

But do keep an eye out for the health units offering the nicotine replacements if you are interested. Or call them to find out if it's in the works.

AFAIK this is incorrect - it is my understanding that for example Myriad (or whatever they're called now) owning the BRCA1 & 2 patent means that they "own" the information that these genes are involved in cancer. I.e. it wouldn't matter how you found out the sequence of your DNA, if you acquire the knowledge of whether or not you are predisposed to cancer by your BRCA1/2 alleles without going through Myriad, you violate the patent. For more details check this position statement by the NCIC out.

Scumbags.

The whole poverty thing was in response to your volunteering to going down to your local library and getting case studies.

Like I said later on, you implied it. By saying that there was blame to be put on parents, you are saying that there is blame to begin with, i.e. that violent games for kids is wrong, at least in part.

There is a difference between "It shuts up the social conservatives who can then shift the blame onto..." and "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto...". The former implies that the social conservatives shift the blame, while the latter implies you're shifting the blame.

But here's a better idea. Instead of shifting blame, real or fake, perhaps discourse and debate with proof that games don't cause violence is more in order. Getting social conservatives to shift their focus doesn't solve anything.

As for the second-hand smoke, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Canadian Cancer Society, amongst others, agree with me. I may not have any education in science, so I can't tell you what carcinogens and what chemicals are involved, but I can tell you what makes sense.

Large parts of what you said were conditionals, to which there is no reply. So I skimmed over those parts. And which party line did I toe again?

Yes, this is true. For more information (from the trouble Canada got into over this) see this site: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182, 3172_61901275__langId-en,00.html Yay for patents! Now that your health is dependent on licensing a patent, I think it's time for a social revolution. Perhaps I will try to get a DNA sample from the CEO of that Utah company, and file for a patent on his specific gene sequence. If he can patent a gene sequence that has existed for 2 million years, then I should be able to patent one that has existed for less than 100... Wouldn't it be funny to sue him for existing? "Hey, you're existence infringes on my patent! Either pay up or change your DNA!". :-)

The Breast Cancer Gene Patent

Some people do have patents on human genes. This example is the Canadian patent system, not US, but the problems are similar. I've heard of other cases of patents on human genes found in living people. I don't recall which ones, or whether it was a US patent or other.

I never believed that someone should be able to have a patent on something discovered in nature. If you invent something, great. But not if you discover something already in existance. And combining two genes discovered in nature to make something that is most likely not in nature is borderline. You can't cut out too much with combination limitations. But if it is too simple a combination, then what effort (other than technical effort) was really involved?

That's right, it is medically known to not damage people

Actually, lung cancer rates have been declining in Canada and the United States for the last twenty years or so, and the result is largely attributed to declines in cigarette smoking. The reason why lung cancers increased through the middle decades of this century (despite a relatively stable smoking rate at the time) is a significant lag between increases in smoking rates and increases in lung cancer incidence (and mortality).

Smoking rates increased from World War I, peaking in about 1965. Trends in lung cancer incidence lagged by fifteen to twenty years, peaking around 1985, and declining since. (Source: Canadian Cancer Society.)

Increases in other cancers may have environmental causes, though there are lifestyle factors to consider as well (e.g. the rise in colon cancer is associated with our unhealthy eating habits.) Also, medical science has gotten better at treating some diseases--we're dying more often due to cancer just because we're not getting killed by other ailments.

Do what my wife and I did: don't buy silly trinkets. Instead, we placed cards on each table stating that we'd spent the equivalent amount of money ($1000) on donations to two charities (The Canadian Cancer Society and the Huntington Society of Canada).

You could do the geeky thing and make a donation to the EFF or something.