Unbelievable Health Lies That Our Government Tells Us!
The key to true knowledge of our human societies is acknowledging that government lies; more so than that, they lie significantly more than they tell the truth. Thus, anything that comes from government should be viewed with suspicion.
Trust, but verify, as President Reagan and the Russians would say...
I recently came across cancer statistics that were so shocking and absurd that I can't put my thoughts together.
Therefore, I'm just going to bullet-point my findings and hope that you will overlook my lack of creating writing format (that will come later! LOL!)
Let's begin...
- In 1991, a research paper submitted to various oncology institutions and experts confirmed that government efforts to control smoking should be effective in reducing lung cancer mortality rates.
- Since the mid-1990s, smoking has significantly declined among youth and adults. Today, smoking rates or usage have essentially fallen to record lows.
- Nevertheless, lung cancer is to this day the "leading cause of cancer death."
How is it possible that smoking rates are declining, yet lung cancer mortality rates are soaring? In fact, if you look into the data, you'll find that federal funding for lung cancer research is ridiculously low relative to the problem:
Pictograph from Lungevity.org
This revelation should lead anyone to be suspicious of hidden government agendas and the entire cancer research industry. Again, a 1991 study -- and I'm sure there are similar reports during that time period -- confirmed a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, which makes plenty of sense.
Yet even with multiple mainstream sources confirming dramatic smoking declines in the U.S., lung cancer is still the number-one killer among cancer!
Ever considered the residual impact of long term smokers who quit yet still got cancer?
Sorry, but this article leaves a lot to be desired. No statistical analysis of age, history of smoking, etc....
Actually, your comment leaves a lot to be desired. With all the utter crap and BS that makes hundreds of dollars, and genuinely worthy content getting pennies, why should I, you or anyone exert that much effort to appease one or two people?
Furthermore, just because I write something in a post doesn't mean I have to include the entire history of the subject. I can just as easily go on your health and exercise blogs, and write dickish comments about "did you ever consider this?" or "did you ever consider that?" or "you didn't include the history of exercising and sport science," etc, but I don't.
This is Steemit; it's supposed to be fun. There are no rules here. You're free to criticize me and hold me up to a high standard, and that's fine too.
All I ask is this: please consider the Steemit economics!
If I did an entire exegesis on this or any topic, I'd very likely make the exact same amount of money -- 80 to 90 cents on average -- posting a picture of a cat farting. One would take weeks, if not months, to compile and craft. The other a few minutes max.
Honestly, you and I both know that we'd be completely retarded to choose the exegesis route given the payout situation. So I think exercising Steemian courtesy -- letting a fellow Steemian do what he needs to do -- is fair in this case, isn't it?
Hey I've been a fan of many of your articles. Some well thought out and funny. This one though... meh.
The amount of effort put into the response is surprising. I simply pointed out counterpoints to your argument and a desire for more articulation and support for your position.
Even more surprising is that you bring up the idea that you would attack my content... Sure, I'd appreciate the feedback. This is more of a platform for me to write copy for use on other platforms for marketing purposes. Not something I'm great at, but working to get better. Starting a line of physical products has its own challenges, and for me marketing is an area to focus on.
So. Once again, I' a fan of many of your posts, but your response to some mild criticism and counterpoints was unexpected and genuinely shocking. Especially where you justify a lack of effort simply because of the lack of potential returns.
I responded thoughtfully because your initial comment was snarky and involved a personal put-down. As you know, I don't mind feedback and counterarguments, as you almost always present your point-of-view and we discuss.
If you disagreed with my argument, you can present your counterargument, or why it is that you disagree. Instead, you just posted a bunch of open-ended questions which anyone can do for any of these posts on Steemit, and implied that I didn't spend enough time researching my post...which again, come on! It's Steemit!
I'm equally surprised that you didn't criticize or debate my point like you normally do; you essentially just complained that I didn't write an exegesis on this topic. That was the basis of my response.
I indeed presented a counter argument by introducing the concept of residual and long term impacts of smoking leading to continued cases of lung cancer.... As I've seen in members of my own family.
Article summary: "smoking rates are down, but lung cancer is still high. Government lies!"
Logical thinking: Smoking, like many toxins, can have long lasting effects even after discontinued use. Think about asbestos. Exposure long ago can still result in cancer years later.
Yes, it is snarky. I make no apologies for it in this case as you struck a nerve that deals with death of family.
Here's another fun statistic for you. "Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. Most people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older, while a very small number of people diagnosed younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70."
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
So that being said, if 40 year olds stopped smoking in the 90's, they'd just now be getting diagnosed with lung cancer today. Lets wait another 10-20 years before calling anti-smoking initiatives lies.
Once again, I make no apologies for my criticism of this particular article as it lacks substance, effort, and critical thinking. You even mentioned in your prior comment that you are all about the money and don't put much effort into your articles so you can crank out content quickly. When you do that, you should not be so butt hurt about people calling BS.
Look forward to moving past this article and enjoying some of your better works. Hope you are able to move on as well.
I suspected that the topic has struck a personal nerve, because with all due respect, it showed. What I mean is that you asked me a question, and proceeded to bring up vague, broad issues (such as history of smoking), but without any clear indication as to whether you agreed or disagreed with what I was presenting. Instead, I received a criticism of the structure (ie. my lack of a comprehensive analysis), not the point of the post itself.
In either case, I'm sorry for your loss, and I understand it struck a nerve.
I want to stress that I have no issues with debating the issue itself. However, you brought up my lack of comprehensiveness, which actually does strike a nerve with me.
To share with you why, I have been plagiarized multiple times, and I have witnessed essentially illegal actions receiving profit on Steemit. No Steemit whale or powerful advocacy group has curbed this problem, and so I personally take issue with accusations of "sloppy work," when plagiarists receive money for doing no work or illegal "work."
In the future, I will determine what is the ideal balance between effort and reward -- if I put in the effort, I need some reasonable probability that it will be rewarded. That's just fair play, not being "all about the money" as you claim, but I absolutely did not say.
As far as your topical counterargument that you just now brought up, I agree with your point about long-term, residual effect of toxins. I don't know if you had a chance to review the 1991 study I sourced in the post, but that study references cancer rates and smoking incidences from decades past.
Consider also that the first medical, and then societal anti-smoking initiatives began in the 1960s and 1970s, well before you or I was born. From what the '91 study reported, scientists should have seen reduced lung cancer rates back in their time frame, but most certainly, in the present day.
This is also confirmed by multiple sources that report smoking across all age groups are down significantly, and youth smoking has been in free-fall since 1996.
And to correct a misunderstand, I'm not calling anti-smoking initiatives lies, as you stated; rather, I'm calling BS on the cancer and cancer research industries. If you followed my work recently, I've been attacking cancer-profiteering, and this article is just one of many I've written about the topic.
Finally, I'm not sure if you should "look forward" to future works, since I will be attacking the cancer research industry again, and soon. I just want to throw that out there, as I won't be "moving on" from this subject matter.
I will of course have multiple non-medical related subjects, which I believe, and hope, you will enjoy.
Again, I'm sorry for your loss, and I did not intend to hurt people or trigger painful memories. I'm here to present a counterpoint to the overwhelming mainstream medical perspective so that ultimately, people can make informed decisions about their life choices.
Usurpers and Tyrants lie. Government provides recourse for the citizenry and is modeled as an extension of the family. :}