Barack Obama’s camapign has yet to follow through with information on Obama’s health and medical history – which apparently will be a doctor’s note, rather than the massive medical records dump John McCain did last week (showing him to be in good health).
At the Politico, Jeff Stier, an anti-smoking zealot associate director of the American Council on Science and Health, estimates that Obama has smoked between 50,000 and 70,000 cigarettes, which may have long-term and sometimes irreversible health consequences:ÂÂ
More than half of all lung cancers are diagnosed in ex-smokers. And it’s not just lung cancer. Ex-smokers face long term risks for pancreatic, esophageal, bladder, and kidney cancers, to name a few.
A 1998 study reported that the amount of fatty deposits in the carotid artery depended on total pack-years of tobacco exposure in a lifetime, not whether a patient currently smokes. A smoker’s excess risk of a stroke doesn’t return to that of nonsmokers until at least five, or as long as 20, years after quitting. It is possible that Obama would have to serve a hypothetical four smoke-free terms before his stroke risk returned to normal.
Will those who clamored for the full, complete and timely disclosure Of McCain’s medical records keep their eyes on the prize with respect to Obama’s health? My bet would be that Obama skates on by in a smokescreen.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Comment by Ouroboros on 5/28 @ 2:14 pm #
Thanks Karl… I quit smoking 5 years ago to try and live a healthier life.. now you tell me ex-smokers are actually more likely to get some horrific smoking related disease…
Arrrrghhh!!! Fuck it… where are my Marlboros?!
Comment by Hoodlumman on 5/28 @ 2:41 pm #
Why do you all want to invade the messiah’s medical right to privacy?
Comment by BumperStickerist on 5/28 @ 2:50 pm #
my god, 3,000 packs of cigs pays for a lot of food programs. Rather than focus on Obama’s health, I prefer we all think of the government programs Barack Obama supported through his selfless dedication to smoking.
-
Comment by Aldo on 5/28 @ 2:52 pm #
Will those who clamored for the full, complete and timely disclosure Of McCain’s medical records keep their eyes on the prize with respect to Obama’s health?
You might have well have just said: “Beetle Juice! Beetle Juice! Beetle Juice”
Now we’ll be hearing about IDT and the Luddites for the rest of the day.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/28 @ 2:58 pm #
Hmmm… I know why the Obamas had financial difficulties. Barack was spending the money on smokes!
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 5/28 @ 3:00 pm #
Hey, it worked for Kennedy, JFK was able to sell himself as young, vital, and healthy while being a physical wreck on pills.
Comment by Karl on 5/28 @ 3:06 pm #
Aldo,
My prior post on McCain’s health reords went unvisited by some…
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/28 @ 4:21 pm #
hehe, he doesnt need to, just look.
;)
Comment by Karl on 5/28 @ 4:32 pm #
Yes, just look!
Comment by JD on 5/28 @ 4:39 pm #
the nishit likes to just make up history as it goes along, Karl. It is the same school of thought that brings us “no conscience no guilt” and “no brain no pain”.
Comment by Pablo on 5/28 @ 4:40 pm #
Indeed, look.
Only 44, and not even a smoker. And quite dead from lung cancer. Obama should get MRI’s and release them.
Comment by Aldo on 5/28 @ 4:53 pm #
BTW Nishi, I answered your comments about the youth vote in the pub.
Comment by Pug on 5/28 @ 4:54 pm #
Maybe McCain and Obama should play a little one-on-one round ball.
That might answer a few questions.
Comment by psycho... on 5/28 @ 5:01 pm #
Obama’s lazy-smoker man-titties are the only things about him that suggest that maybe he’s not a total jackhole. Complaining about the single human flaw in his perfect costume of conformity — leftist.
Comment by JD on 5/28 @ 5:03 pm #
Pug – What would that prove, exactly?
Comment by Aldo on 5/28 @ 5:11 pm #
JD,
I have a feeling Obama would not be able to post up against McCain, despite the age difference. Obama would probably look to the ref’s for help winning the game.
Comment by alppuccino on 5/28 @ 5:19 pm #
Well Pug may have a point. Tough to block a shot when you can’t lift your arms above your head because you’ve been hung from the ceiling by your wrists-behind your back.
Of course Obama may be reluctant to go to the hole because with McCain scurrying in the key, it might look like Auschwitz to him and he could have vicarious attic flashbacks from his great-uncle and just curl up in a ball at half court for six months. So it’s a pick ‘em.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/28 @ 5:25 pm #
back at chu Aldo.
;)
Comment by JD on 5/28 @ 5:25 pm #
I was a walk-on for a D-1 team. I would love to play Baracky.
Comment by alppuccino on 5/28 @ 5:26 pm #
Don’t forget the “statement foul” JD.
Comment by Arthur on 5/28 @ 7:34 pm #
If half of lung cancer cases were smokers , what was the other half? So by not smoking I have a 50% chance of getting lung cancer? What’s a boy to do?
Comment by The Lost Dog on 5/28 @ 7:56 pm #
If Obama releases his medical recotds, and it turns out that he has a deviated septum from doing too much blow, I bet that would lift him at least five points in the polls.
Comment by B Moe on 5/28 @ 10:48 pm #
If half of lung cancer cases were smokers , what was the other half? So by not smoking I have a 50% chance of getting lung cancer? What’s a boy to do?
Cook it up in brownies.
Comment by Merovign on 5/29 @ 1:16 am #
Visit http://www.numberwatch.co.uk and/or buy a math book.
Comment by Barack Obama on 5/29 @ 6:13 am #
I am perfectly healthy, bitches.
Do you have a light?
Comment by Brett on 5/29 @ 7:37 am #
Ah, anti-smoking–the equal opportunity bigotry of choice for postwarriors.
Comment by Steven Jens on 5/29 @ 7:45 pm #
#24, thanks for that URL, though a quick look around didn’t provide an explanation of what you’re talking about. Which I hope just means I didn’t look hard enough, because #21’s mistake is sadly common.
The percentage of lung-cancer sufferers who are non-smokers is not the same thing as the percentage of non-smokers who are lung-cancer sufferers. Suppose – I’m making up these numbers – that 1% of non-smokers get lung cancer, that 3% of smokers do, and that 25% of the population smokes. Then .75% of the population will be non-smokers with lung cancer and 3*.25%=.75% of the population will be smokers with lung cancer; in other words, half of the people with lung cancer are non-smokers.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes‘_theorem