Re: World Health Organization results: Passive Smoking in Childhood Prevents Lung Cancer

- about my own post -
I'm top-posting, to make it easier to skip the bottom if
you want.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 00:10:09 -0400, Richard Ulrich
<Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This was a rather long post, where I pointed out the
numerical consequences of a gene related to lung cancer.
Among other things, I wrote,
RU >
Okay. Specific criticism. For what you show above, the problem
seems to be in the numbers. If this is what the researchers are
reporting, then you are right, and the gene does account for a
large fraction of cases. And, in that case, I'm surprised that I
haven't heard of it.

I asked around, and -- There does seem to be a potent
gene like that, and I am, indeed, surprised that I hadn't
heard of it. The numbers I generated are something
like the real ones.

Since the larger health risk from smoking is heart disease,
this risk-factor makes less difference to the general population
than it ought to make to the 10% who have the gene -
Smoking is a *really* large risk for them. Once we have
general genotyping, I expect that the insurance companies
will be avid to exclude them if they smoke, and then
companies will feel compelled to stop hiring smokers....
(which some U.S. companies already have done).

Here is the full note, followed only by my sig.

On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:11:52 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<15137@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DZ wrote:
[snip]
ru > >
when most odds ratios for potential 'intervening factors' -- ones
that might account for the coincidence -- are so much smaller.
DZ >
If you have any specific criticism about the genetic study (or my
interpretation of it) discussed in this thread, this would be a good
time to do so.

The study gave estimates that about 10% of population carry one or two
copies of an allele that increases lung cancer risk 12 times (for
heterozygote carriers), and 62.5 times (for homozygotes) in heavy
smokers. In non-smokers, the risk is increased 14.5 times (for
heterozygotes), and 2245.6 times (for homozygotes).

Okay. Specific criticism. For what you show above, the problem
seems to be in the numbers. If this is what the researchers are
reporting, then you are right, and the gene does account for a
large fraction of cases. And, in that case, I'm surprised that I
haven't heard of it.


I've tried to dummy up some numbers.
If 10% of the population of smokers have 12-fold risk,
then allmost 40% of the smokers who get lung cancer
ought to have the allele.

Total population 300.
100 smokers, 16 cancers for an overall 6%-of-300 rate.
90 without allele, 10 get cancer 80+10
10 with allele (1 homozygous), 6 get cancer 4+6
That's an odds ratio of 12 to 1, which is close, but ignores
the separate odds for homozygous.

These numbers are a little too big, since they overstate
the rate. But that is a large number of gene-related cancers.


200 Nonsmokers: 2 are homozygous; both probably
get lung cancer. Are the alleles assorted by 'race' so there
would be more?
Maybe there are 2 cases among the 180 non-allele non-smokers
and another 2 cases among the heterozygous -- 6
cases among nonsmokers, at least 4 with the allele.


That is a strong enough genetic effect that family
studies ought to find it. I have no reason to think
that "randomizing twins" to conditions - where you started-
should be more revealing that the observational data.

Is this what they are reporting, numbers like those above?
Has this gene been identified?

--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it legal in your state?
    ... > smokers are far more likely to get it than are non-smokers. ... > denial are smokers who need to rationalize their habit. ... But at no time did I ever say I wasn't at risk for lung cancer. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Is it legal in your state?
    ... >> And if it causes lung cancer, that's the decision of the individual to ... do they want to risk it? ... And MJ smokers don't tend to smoke ... Your parents smoked pot in front of you? ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Letter to the editor published
    ... The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is ... what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. ... The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the ... individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Yes, we all know
    ... The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is ... what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. ... The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the ... individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: => Socioeconomic Inequities In Lung Cancer Incidence of Smokers <= attn: Lowlife Tobacco Addicts
    ... increases the likelihood of smoking in adolescence. ... have a higher risk for developing lung cancer. ... association of smoking, diet, education, and lung cancer in 391,251 ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)