The first the last Eternity

'Public Health' have an obsession. They're not obsessed with making people healthier, as you'd be excused for thinking, given the title. They're obsessed with making people live longer

Longer than what, we're not told. Just longer. Longer than you would have done, if you hadn't done as 'Public Health' told you

It doesn't matter what that extra life entails; it doesn't matter if you spend your extra years sat in a puddle of your own piss without even the ability to remember your own childrens names. Under the 'Public Health' doctrine, you have a duty to live as long as possible. All other life concerns, such as happiness and quality, are not important

Even if your final years are lived in a great deal of misery and physical pain, you still have a duty to do as you're told and live them

Lung cancer survivors who quit smoking within a year of diagnosis will live for longer than those who continue to smoke, according to new research led by the Universities of Birmingham and Oxford.

While just over a third of lung cancer patients were smoking at diagnosis, those who stopped smoking and survived their treatment lived on average for 1.97 years, compared with 1.08 years for those who did not quit smoking after diagnosis, finds the study published in British Journal of Cancer.

'Lung cancer survivors in this badly worded paragraph, does not mean people who had lung cancer and now don't, it means people who have survived the treatment and will probably live for another year if their cancer was diagnosed early. It's also presumably referring to the 20% of lung cancer sufferers who are smokers, not the 80% who aren't. Giving up smoking would make no difference to them. But that's by the by...

Look at those averages again: "those who stopped smoking [...] lived on average for 1.97 years, compared with 1.08 years for those who did not quit smoking"

So you have lung cancer. You might have a year to live. If you do as you're told by public health, you might just get another .89 of a year to live. With lung cancer. While also giving up smoking. Dying in pain and without the one thing that might help you a small way towards coping with it

But you must have that extra .89 of a year

Dr Amanda Farley, lead author and lecturer at the University of Birmingham, said "This research indicates that it is never too late to quit smoking. Although many people think that the damage is done, our research shows that even after a diagnosis of lung cancer, people can still benefit from quitting."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was supposed to take years of smoking before it manifested itself into lung cancer? Yet quitting when you already have it can help in some way? Ok then

And in other news:

GPs 'don't bother persuading cancer patients to give up smoking'

Maybe GP's aren't such big shits as 'Public Health'?

GPs are not bothering to persuade cancer patients to give up smoking despite quitters enjoying double the life expectancy, new research reveals

Double the life expectancy. We've seen what that means and 'enjoying' is not the word I would have used
Maybe it's me. I'm not facing death in the eye and maybe if I was, I would want that extra .89 of a year. I don't imagine I would though, at that price

A study by Oxford University found family doctors were almost twice as likely to offer cessation advice to people diagnosed with coronary heart disease as they were to lung cancer patients, both smoking-related conditions.
Yes, but you have a much longer life expectancy with heart disease than you do lung cancer. If smoking is affecting your heart disease, it's probably a very good idea to quit, as the cost / benefit would actually be worthwhile

It's the job of a GP to treat patients and to offer sound medical advice, not to push the 'Public Health' mantra of extra years, no matter the cost

If a cancer sufferer wants help to quit smoking, no GP will refuse if asked. They don't need to be 'persuaded'.

0 Comments: