To think that giving up smoking can actually CAUSE cancer
merrywidow · 27/03/2011 20:11
Have seen several people give up smoking then develop lung / throat cancer.
spoke to a friend, she says the same of someone she knows.
A cell biologist I met actually asked if my H who died of lung cancer had given up smoking, I said he had a couple of years previously, then nodded sagely.
I googled the subject and found a docs forum where they actually discussed it; the thought was that as the body heals the cells then don't know when to stop dividing and go into overdrive becoming cancerous.
5inthebed · 27/03/2011 20:13
Interesting. My FIL gave up smoking after 45 years and died 4 months later from oesophagus cancer. DH thinks that had he just kept on smoking he would still be alive today.
blinks · 27/03/2011 20:14
would it not still be essentially caused by the smoking in the first place though? ie there would be nothing to 'heal' if the smoking hadn't taken place?
ladysybil · 27/03/2011 20:15
yanbu. observations lead to links which lead to theories and well, studies and then proofs.
hardhatdonned · 27/03/2011 20:16
YABU two grandparents (one from either side) both gave up 40 a day habits and one died 20 years after giving up, the other is still going strong 30 years after giving up.
Anecdotes are not proof.
onagar · 27/03/2011 20:17
Interesting. I wouldn't use it as an argument FOR smoking of course, but if a significant effect it undermines those who want those who currently smoke to be prevented from doing so.
merrywidow · 27/03/2011 20:18
I will try to find it, though I'm crap at links
southeastastra · 27/03/2011 20:18
great i gave up two years ago! i don't believe it myself, most smokers i know who gave up are just alot richer, slightly fatter and 100% fitter so i'll take me chances
merrywidow · 27/03/2011 20:18
got to put DS to bed first,will come back in a bit and do it
TidyDancer · 27/03/2011 20:19
Hmmm. This is quite interesting. Would this only apply to heavy smokers? Ie, those who smoke 20 or more a day? I can imagine the theory applying when it's a shock to the body, which would follow that it was a relatively high number of cigarettes smoked to cause it.
FabbyChic · 27/03/2011 20:19
I smoke, my Nan smoked until she was diagnosed then was in hospital. she was 76. My parents are 70. I smoke and won't give up I be happy if I live to 70.
winnybella · 27/03/2011 20:19
I do recall my grandfather's doctor forbidding him to quit smoking when he was around 70 and on 2 packets a day- something to do with it actually being worse than continuing smoking [confusing]
CatIsSleepy · 27/03/2011 20:19
look, if you smoke for 45 years, give up and die of cancer 4 months later I'm pretty sure the cancer developed whilst the smoking was still going on and your FIL just gave up too late after smoking too long 5inthebed
the genetic changes that lead to cancer can take years to accumulate
giving up is a good thing to do, the sooner the better
gordyslovesheep · 27/03/2011 20:21
I gave up a year ago - I am fitter, happier and healthier - I'll take my chances - my guess is I am still LESS at risk than somebody who smokes
70 is no age - I am aiming for 85 minimum
ScarlettWalking · 27/03/2011 20:22
All I know was that when I gave up I was ill for about 2 years, really ill with infections/ colds - immunity soo low. All from quitting.
I think your body and immune system goes into a kind of relaxation mode whereas when you are actively smoking the nicotine has had a numbing effect. The process of giving up any drug is dangerous for the health absolutely.
Violethill · 27/03/2011 20:22
The smoking is still the fundamental cause of cancer, whether it develops when the person is still smoking or after they give up.
ENormaSnob · 27/03/2011 20:23
How do you know they are actual doctors on the Internet forum?
How would you diffrentiate between a cancer caused by giving up smoking and a cancer that was caused by smoking in the first place?
I am not a believer in anecdotal evidence tbh
Nancy66 · 27/03/2011 20:24
it was still smoking in the first place that killed them though...by the time they quit the damage was done.
southeastastra · 27/03/2011 20:27
also my dad (81) was a heavy smoker until his mid 60s is fit as a fiddle
not starting smoking is probably your best bet to avoid any sort of lung cancer, ban the things i say.
sorry about your husband op
FlaminGreatGallah · 27/03/2011 20:29
Interesting. Didn't that happen to Allen Carr? Such a pity.
Mamaz0n · 27/03/2011 20:31
As someone who is literally sat opposite my dad, aged 50 who has days to live due mostly down to his smoking i couldn't care less whether it causes cancer or not. there are a great many other illnesses just as horrible that it DOES cause.
He is sitting here with a machine helping him breath. Any minute now he will have to swap his nasal tubes for a full face mask and Bi pap machine.
He has 9 children, the youngest aged only 9 And 5 grandchildren.
Anyone in this day and age that decides to smoke or refuse to give up is a selfish idiot.
onagar · 27/03/2011 20:31
It wouldn't surprise me if there were extra risk factors for say the first six months after quitting. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stop as after that you'd still get lots of low risk years and it would balance out in your favour to stop.
And yes it would still be the smoking that caused it if you're talking about blame.
Still if there is any truth to it then it should be studied to find the safest way to give up yes?
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.