On July 2, 2022, the well-known medical professional " Lilac Garden " pushed an article on his official account, "Without them, lung cancer would be a rare cancer"
When I first saw this title, It also feels quite professional. But after opening the article and taking a look, I immediately discovered the problem. This article used selective data to draw a conclusion that is completely different from the real situation .
What does this mean?
When something happens, three direct factors A, B, and C appear at the same time. If I selectively tell you only A, then you will be misled by me.
This article by Lilac Garden adopts this method. Next, let me talk about it in detail.
Lilac Garden misleads readers to make wrong conclusions by selectively providing real data
Look at the picture below:
Pay attention to the 4 sentences I highlighted:
1. Before the 20th century, lung cancer was very rare (point out the facts)
2. Lung cancer due to tobacco Became the king of cancer (put forward an argument)
3. Why did lung cancer, once a rare cancer, become the king of cancer in 100 years? (raises suspense and invites people to continue reading)
4. Because of the development of the tobacco industry (gives a perfect conclusion)
These four sentences are advanced layer by layer and seem to be a perfect logical closed loop.
But this deduction has logical loopholes.
Of course, tobacco is the number one killer of lung cancer. But the article also says that humans have used tobacco for thousands of years. Why didn’t tobacco cause so much harm in the past?
The conclusion given in the article is that it was because there was no promotion by commercial organizations before.
But as it happens, I know a little about the development history of medicine in the 20th century, and this development history pokes a big hole in this article.
This is: British bacteriologist Alexander Fleming invented penicillin (penicillin) in 1928. Penicillin was widely used in World War II , which greatly improved human life span.
According to the information, when our country was first founded, due to limitations of medical conditions and various other factors, the average life expectancy was only 35 years old. By 2021, the average life expectancy has increased to 78.2 years.
The age difference is a key factor in the onset of various tumors.
According to the Lung Cancer Report (2020) released by the National Cancer Center , among lung cancer patients in my country, the incidence rate is relatively low under the age of 40, and then rises rapidly with age, reaching a peak between the ages of 80 and 84. (This is data after taking into account the impact of tobacco on the Chinese people)
In 1950, the average life expectancy in our country was only 35 years old!
Then, does the so-called "before the 20th century, lung cancer was very rare" be explained? Because the vast majority of Chinese people have died before they reach the age at which cancer is most common.
has nothing to do with the tobacco industry, and the arguments behind that article have become bullshit.
The same article was published repeatedly within two years. What’s the secret behind it?
What I saw was the version issued by the Lilac Garden public account on July 2, 2022.
But through Baidu search, I found the version they released on October 17, 2020, in Tencent News.The title is also "Without them, lung cancer would be a rare cancer"
. Why is it necessary to send this article back and forth without changing every word? In the past two years, has the incidence of lung cancer changed, or has the tobacco industry changed?
But when I read this article, from the title to the content, not a word was changed.
I don’t understand. Maybe the owner of Lilac Garden is a crazy anti-smoking enthusiast.
My thoughts: Smoking is indeed harmful to health, but it is not advisable to provoke public emotions by misleading the public.
It is the consensus of modern society that smoking is harmful to health. It can cause tumors in the respiratory system and cause cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, harmful great.
But this does not mean that professional medical websites can provoke public emotions out of thin air and use wrong methods to achieve their goals.
If I were writing this article, I would be able to draw a credible conclusion by comparing the proportion of smokers in major countries in the world and the incidence of lung cancer among the people. Why are you so deceptive? Talking about irrelevant history makes people think you are knowledgeable, but in fact it makes no sense. (There are about 350 million smokers in my country, and the incidence of lung cancer is about 36 per 100,000)
