7167
Comments (851)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
HuggableBear 4 points ago +9 / -5

The odds that cigars actually caused his cancer are pretty low.

What the doctors don't ever tell you is that the words "risk factor" don't mean what you think they mean.

There are more people with lung cancer that have never smoked a day in their lives than there are people who smoked a ton.

But among smokers, there is a slightly higher incidence of lung cancer than in the general populace.

So yeah, it's a "risk factor", but there are still far more people with lung cancer that never touched the stuff. Cancer is almost entirely just a random thing that happens. There are very few risk factors that mean much of anything.

1
THE_MAGAL0RIAN 1 point ago +5 / -4

There are more people with lung cancer that have never smoked a day in their lives than there are people who smoked a ton.

This is patently untrue. Per the 2014 study below, more than 90% of lung cancers have been shown to be attributable to smoking.

Siemiatycki J, Karp I, Sylvestre MP, Pintos J. Estimating the proportion of cases of lung cancer legally attributable to smoking: a novel approach for class actions against the tobacco industry. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(8):e60–6.

2
Barbs 2 points ago +3 / -1

Now think back to grade school where they tried to discourage you from smoking by showing that it has all the same chemicals as car exhaust. Now think about that statement for a moment, and then ask why are smokers getting the blame when everybody owns a car.

They put out the same chemicals, but smoking is obviously the problem (on a massively lower scale). Even second-hand. But don’t you dare blame that car in your driveway.

3
voxpopuli16 3 points ago +3 / -0

Because tailpipes are not aimed into your mouth?