Cancer Smoking And Asbestos

[free_spirit_etc]

Hi everybody! Been busy as heck -- teaching 10 classes this semester and taking 2 classes! Ack!

Am working on my husband's claim - fiding additional supporting evidence.

I ran across this today. It might be useful for someone else who is filing a claim for lung cancer / asbestos exposure -- who also smokes.

The base doctor had noted in my husband's medical records on two occassions that he had an 80 times increased risk of cancer from smoking / asbestos combined.

He declined writing an actual "opinion" --(was going to and then said the base attorney said they can't)

but we are still pushing the "opinion" DOCUMENTED in the medical records.

So have been looking for valid information to support the medical record documentation.

Found THIS site

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/iso/Asbestos/sld039.htm

Which states:

If you smoke and have exposure to asbestos -80 times greater

If you smoke and have no exposure to asbestos - 22 times greater

If you don’t smoke and have exposure to asbestos - 5 times greater

If you don’t smoke and don’t have exposure to asbestos - normal risk

Smoking compounds the effects of asbestos on your body. The best solution is to stop smoking.

SO we found something to back the medical record documentation of the 80 times greater risk. This is from US Army Medical Department Center & School Portal - which sgould be a "reliable" source for the VA

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/ (Home page)

[free_spirit_etc]

Army,

Yeah. I know a lot of stuff is propoganda. And the politics surrounding cancer and cancer treatment are substantial. That is one reason my husband is using alternative methods of healing, as well as going the traditional route.

The main reason I posted this is that if a veteran has smoked --and has lung cancer, they have to overcome lots of obstacles in getting service connection. It is easy for the VA to overlook the asbestos / smoking connection - and just say "Well - you smoked."

Since this site gives substantial weight to the combined interaction of smoking and asbestos exposure -- which can help a veteran rebut the argument that their cancer was caused by smoking alone -- and since the site is a military site -- I wanted to share it in case it could help a brother or sister with their claim down the road.

Even if everyone doesn't agree with what it says - if it helps one veteran - it is worth it.

And I also am having trouble understanding the tone of your response. My intent was to help other veterans who might need an additional resource. My intent, also, is to help my husband. I don't quite understand the harshness of your response.

Free (still hoping for a cure for her husband because she loves him very much and doesn't want to lose him)

Sorry, I don't believe that AMA propoganda. That is BS. The AMA has pushed BS propoganda for decades and no one is willing to take them to task. It is nothing but BS. They are draining us of our money, their only crusade. They have NEVER cured people with cancer, shame on them for the lies, with $BILLIONS donated each and every year for the past 50 years. And, I am not talking about 2 $billion..... but MUCH more.

[free_spirit_etc]

Thanks. I have a better understanding now of the anger in your response. I think for them to consider you "cured" you have to go five years with no SIGN of cancer...not just live for five years. My husband's cancer was detected in 2000 - he is still alive -- but they don't consider him cured because he has active tumors. When he went through periods of no active tumors being detected -- he was considered in remission. After five years in remission = they consider you cured. But there is much twisting with that too.

My husband's cancer was surgically removed in 2000. When it was redected right in the stump of the brochus that was clamped off from his previous surgery - they said it RECURRED. We don't think it came back -- we think the part they left in just grew big enough to be detected again.

One thing they also go by is survival time from detection. They are now able to detect many cancers much earlier due to improvements in detection methods. So -of course, the survival rates are considered MUCH better. If they find the tumor two years earlier -- you can still die at the same time you would have if they would have found it later -- but it LOOKS LIKE you survived two years LONGER when they crunch the numbers because you survived two extra years AFTER detection.

But we are trying as many things as we can to beat this - and not leaving it entirely up to the doctors.

So far we have been blessed with more time --and we have been blessed with GOOD time. And we will take all the good time we can get.

Free

My complaint is with the medical doctors that claim that they have cured many cancers. By the way the keep count, if you are still alive after 5 years after diagnosis, you are a "cure". If you die 1 day after the 5-year period, you are still counted as a cure. Their cure rate is highly OVER-STATED.... by design.

That is BS. The medical community should be ashamed of their progress on cancer and aids. There has been little, if any, progress on the 2. They simply have not delivered on their promises dispite the $billions poured-in every year.... and, here we are almost in 2007...... with little, if any, progress. B)