Written by
Dana Reeves may never have smoked but she did work in nightclubs back in the days when people would sit and drink and listen and smoke for hours. She was a nightclub singer and she did that for many years..she even did it when her husband Christopher first became paralyzed too. If anyone reading this, was in one of her audiences, back then, and you smoked cigars cigarettes whatever, you can feel proud to think you con- tributed to Dana Reeves death.
Featuring Content From:
By using this service, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them. The consumer health information on is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. You should promptly seek professional medical care if you have any concern about your health, and you should always consult your physician before starting a fitness regimen. Copyright © 2012 Remedy Health Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
I think your articel would have been helped if you'd stayed on track and not resorted to sentimentalism. Also, getting the facts straight would have helped, too, as regards Mr. Newman and movies:
Newman announced that he would entirely retire from acting on May 25, 2007. He stated that he did not feel he could continue acting at the level he wanted to. "You start to lose your memory, you start to lose your confidence, you start to lose your invention. So I think that's pretty much a closed book for me."
People die from many kinds of cancer and while lung cancer is in fact the most prevalent form of the disease, more than 20% of those who contract lung cancer have never smoked.
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your perspective, however I would like to corrrect the number you quoted so readers will have the latest information.
Recent studies show that up to 10% of lung cancer victims never smoked (not over 20%). The 20% number refers only to a study that looked at female lung cancer victims and the jury is still out on why that is, although there are strong indicators that second-hand smoke is the culprit in many (but certainly not all) of these cases.
A new Web-based clinical trial run by researchers at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center is inviting people who have lung cancer and who never smoked to help them understand more. To learn about joining this study, see http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/99/33907/lung-cancer-patients-who-never-smoked-invited-study.html
People WANT lung cancers to be caused by smoking, which gives the anti-smoking groups ammunition, but you never see people struggling to fit other cancers into health-related behaviors. For example, I never see anti-drinking groups trying to claim liver cancers as resulting from alcohol or stomach cancers as being the result of fatty foods. Cancer has been around longer than any of these behaviors/substances and trying to assume that only our new environments are the reason for the disease; I consider that to be somewhat hysterical thinking.
While it's true that the toxins we inhale/ingest can be blamed for increased numbers of cancers, trying to affix full blame to them is naive at best. You're working from a position of bias and everything you write has to be taken with a minimum of a grain of salt.
Oh, and BTW...I don't smoke and my mother died from lung cancer.
so if your mother died from lung cancer and you didnt smoke, what is the reasoning there?