by tim » Wed Aug 05, 2026 9:05 am
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/sm ... t-does-the
Smoking and Cancer - what does the data show?
Can a 122 yo woman teach us something about health?
Dr. Ochsner’s speech that day was impassioned, and it was easy to see why he had been president of the American Cancer Society. Before 1930 lung cancer was so rare, Ochsner explained, that it was not even listed on the International Classification of Disease system in the United States. Ochsner even recalled as a medical student that he was awakened in the middle of the night to witness an autopsy of a man who died of lung cancer, because his professors considered it to be a medical event so rare that he might not see another again in his lifetime. But now, [around 1960] said Ochsner, there was an epidemic of lung cancer and the victims were overwhelmingly cigarette smokers.
This quote became a starting point for my investigation. Ochsner allegedly stated that there was no lung cancer before 1930! Whether or not Ochsner said this, the statement is factually correct - lung cancer was exceedingly rare at that time. This is despite smoking being prevalent for centuries, and despite high rates of tobacco use in the United States:
These 2 sets of charts are showing an extremely odd pattern that does not neatly fold into “smoking cigarettes causes cancer” narrative, because notice that in 1975, when both male and female rates of smoking began to decline, men had approximately 4 times (!!!) higher rate of lung cancer, while the rate of smokers in the population was only 10% higher. The gigantic gap between male and female rates of lung cancer that only began to narrow after 2005 is the best evidence that it wasn’t cigarettes, but something else entirely that was causing or exacerbating lung cancer.
Another significant evidence against the narrative is the growth in the rates of lung cancer diagnosed in younger people and children who are not smokers and not exposed to smoke. These rates have accelerated after the mRNA rollout in 2021, notice the change in slope in all graphs below:
Incidence in <50 yo, and 15-39 yo, post mRNA rollout, the rate increased 3.2%.
As a teenager, Jean met Vincent Van Gogh, and found him very unpleasant. She was tiny (4’11). She reportedly had some childhood vaccines, but no records are available. She was from an upper middle class family, and she had a relatively comfortable life in a century of major wars and societal upheavals. From all the information available about her - she was not “health conscious”. She didn’t maintain a particular diet, she didn’t take vitamins or supplements, and didn’t seem to care about her “health metrics”. Worse - she ate chocolate by pounds a week!! What would MAHA-HHS say, sugar kills, that’s worse than being on heroin? Even worse than that - she drank wine (preferred sweet) and she smoked until the age of 117!
The only thing I can reliably conclude from Jean’s story - it’s not the smoking that kills you, it’s quitting that does.
[url]https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/smoking-and-cancer-what-does-the[/url]
[quote] Smoking and Cancer - what does the data show?
Can a 122 yo woman teach us something about health?
[/quote]
[quote] Dr. Ochsner’s speech that day was impassioned, and it was easy to see why he had been president of the American Cancer Society. Before 1930 lung cancer was so rare, Ochsner explained, that it was not even listed on the International Classification of Disease system in the United States. Ochsner even recalled as a medical student that he was awakened in the middle of the night to witness an autopsy of a man who died of lung cancer, because his professors considered it to be a medical event so rare that he might not see another again in his lifetime. But now, [around 1960] said Ochsner, there was an epidemic of lung cancer and the victims were overwhelmingly cigarette smokers.
This quote became a starting point for my investigation. Ochsner allegedly stated that there was no lung cancer before 1930! Whether or not Ochsner said this, the statement is factually correct - lung cancer was exceedingly rare at that time. This is despite smoking being prevalent for centuries, and despite high rates of tobacco use in the United States:[/quote]
[quote] These 2 sets of charts are showing an extremely odd pattern that does not neatly fold into “smoking cigarettes causes cancer” narrative, because notice that in 1975, when both male and female rates of smoking began to decline, men had approximately 4 times (!!!) higher rate of lung cancer, while the rate of smokers in the population was only 10% higher. The gigantic gap between male and female rates of lung cancer that only began to narrow after 2005 is the best evidence that it wasn’t cigarettes, but something else entirely that was causing or exacerbating lung cancer.
Another significant evidence against the narrative is the growth in the rates of lung cancer diagnosed in younger people and children who are not smokers and not exposed to smoke. These rates have accelerated after the mRNA rollout in 2021, notice the change in slope in all graphs below:
Incidence in <50 yo, and 15-39 yo, post mRNA rollout, the rate increased 3.2%.[/quote]
[quote] As a teenager, Jean met Vincent Van Gogh, and found him very unpleasant. She was tiny (4’11). She reportedly had some childhood vaccines, but no records are available. She was from an upper middle class family, and she had a relatively comfortable life in a century of major wars and societal upheavals. From all the information available about her - she was not “health conscious”. She didn’t maintain a particular diet, she didn’t take vitamins or supplements, and didn’t seem to care about her “health metrics”. Worse - she ate chocolate by pounds a week!! What would MAHA-HHS say, sugar kills, that’s worse than being on heroin? Even worse than that - she drank wine (preferred sweet) and she smoked until the age of 117!
The only thing I can reliably conclude from Jean’s story - it’s not the smoking that kills you, it’s quitting that does.
[/quote]