Way to late and WAY to few "scientific facts" for you ro save the "scientific credibility" of tobacco control Herr Doktor.
Besides, this is old news, which originated with the Daily Mail's (where the 40% "miracle" was first reported) usw of FOI to selectively use records from only some of the hospital/trusts to show the result the reporter (NOT a scientist mind you just another anti reporter in sheeps clothing) wanted to trumpet just in time for gasp, the one year anniversary of the illegal ban being imposed in the UK.
"This is pure junk science, and it is a shame that the anti-smoking and health groups are willing to stoop down to the level of junk science to promote their agendas."
Almost right, Michael. You just need to lose the word "science" from your conclusion - this is just pure junk!
This is purely the output of a tabloid newspaper, noted for taking a routinely hysterical health-scare line (every Tuesday is best - or worst), managed by a rabidly anti (reformed) smoker editor that clearly wanted to be the first to herald the "good news" that the English smoking ban had reduced heart attacks - it was bound to do so, as surely as night follows day!
That the Daily Mail demonstrates such a complete lack of morals and integrity comes as no surprise. That the air-headed Amanda Sandford of ASH coos and wriggles with pleasure at such 'wonderful' statistics also comes as no suprise, since ASH combines the same lack of morals and integrity with a total lack of intelligence too.
But the fact that the British Heart Foundation, and the British Cardiovascular Society, both organisations knowing full well that such an outcome is physiologically ludicrous, shows just how deep into the swamp the fringes of the global healthcare industry have sunk.
To cheer such an obvious lie with such gusto, just to score a cheap campagning point, is disgraceful to the point of being downright criminal.
I am now deeply ashamed to heave spent my whole working life giving professional support to such people.
By the way, Michael, you didn't need to bother calculating confidence intervals on the %age of Trusts with reduced heart attacks. I can assure you that the data used (obtained under FoI!!) is bound to be well below any acceptable standard of completeness and the quality of the diagnostic coding (which in the UK takes typically 6 weeks plus after the patients are discharged) cannot possibly have been validated so quickly. Just look at the one Trust with an apparent 41% drop in heart attacks. This one Trust, alone, accounted for almost one third of the total drop (418 of 1384), yet this Trust has inpatient activity levels of less that 1% of the country as a whole! Reality check, anyone? Incomplete data? Of course it is!
It really isn't worth carrying out any analysis, pseudo-scientific or otherwise on such data (although I, too, have so done - and the truth is far more shocking than we have so far revealed here).
This piece of garbage would make a perfect textbook case for anyone wishing to teach how not to analyze and interpret statistics.
I doubt if it is possible to get much lower than this ... but then Stanton Glantz is still alive, so we must have some way to go yet!
Hi, everybody.
.
Thanks Brian. I, too, am not surprised by the fact that the shoddy report comes from a tabloid-type paper. But what is unacceptable is that the anti-smoking and health groups would jump onto this junk and endorse it. It doesn't say a lot for their scientific standards.
Incidentally. I think it only appropriate that the journalist who was the 'author' of this 'study' is given due plaudits for such a fine piece of work, so...
...drumroll...
Rebecca Camber
Take a bow!
(I like to keep a promise! 
)
.
The Daily Maily 'study' also got torn up on Freedom2choose by an anonymous NHS statistician.
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=721
This is really so absurd, it tops it all. Unbelievable what people are willing to do to get their point.
I agree, i doesn't deserve the term "junk science", it's only junk.
Thank you for your honesty Michael, it is the lies, more than the persecution that is becoming unbearable.
Does this one coming up have any merit?
http://www.pr-inside.com:80/
wh..........650452.htm
TV Schedule, Fox Morning 6/19, Smokers Rights, Firing Smokers, Smoker's Breath Air Pollution
Why Fire Smokers - Fox Morning 6/19 - Save $12,000/yr // Smokers Breath is an Indoor Air Pollution Hazard
Snip~
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), also plans to discuss a new medical study which shows that the breath of smokers creates unhealthy levels even if they do all their smoking outdoors.
I ran a piece to send people here Doc.
Thank you for following up.
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=723
I ranted a little about the shoddy, seedy, greedy little world that the puritans inhabit.
Somedays I just cant help myself. They are such an easy target.....
Colin, try:
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=723
By criticizing the peripheral technical flaws in the latest "study" from UK, "The Rest of the Story" is trying to create illusion that the rest of Anti-Smoking "Science" (A.S.S.) [1] is anything else but a pure junk science itself [2]. The A.S.S. "proofs" of alleged harmful effects of tobacco smoke rest entirely on the statistical correlations on self-selected samples of smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers.
Normal science follows up such statistical hints of possible causal role of some "risk factor" with animal experiments or randomized intervention trials on humans [3]. The hints by themselves only indicate that 'tobbaco smoke' is a node of some complex tree of causes and effects (containing many environmental, biochemical, genetic,... nodes) that also has 'smoking related diseases' in the leaf nodes. Since both, the protective/theraputic and harmful substances share the same complex tree, thuse correlate with diseases or reduced lifespan it is the task of hard science to go beyond the hint and disentangle which node has which role. For example, in any age group, users of respirators have shorter life expectancy than ex-users, who in turn have shorter life-expectancy than never-users, even though respirators extend life of users.
Yet, after 60 years of research the A.S.S. it is still stuck in the hint phase, and not because they didn't try using hard science to support their claims. They tried it thousands of times, but it always backfired, showing that smoking animals, under almost any smoking levels and exposures to variety of industrial toxins and carcinogens, live significantly longer, stay thinner, accumulate less industrial toxins in their tissues, perform better especially on cognitive tasks....[4]
References
1. J. R. Johnstone, P. D. Finch "Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray...ay/
TSSOASb.html
2. Steven J. Milloy "SCIENCE WITHOUT SENSE: methods & signs of junk science"
http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html
3. References & discussion on "wrong results" of hard science regarding hypothesized causal role of smoking in lung cancer (within a thread on smoking in nootropics forum)
http://www.imminst.org/forum/ind...ndpost&
p=167147
4. Smoking animals live longer...
a) Refs & graphs from large 1971-1974 NCI sponsored experiments on hamsters
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...osts?
page=36#36
b) 2004 Rat experiments (sponsored by Pfizer)
http://www.imminst.org/forum/ind...ndpost&
p=167231
c) 2005 Female mice experiments (sponsored by Pfizer)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...osts?
page=63#63
???
My link takes you to the same place...
Sorry Colin. Your link didn't work for me, so I found the piece, copied the address, posted it up - and then found it was the same as yours.
This is pure junk science, and it is a shame that the anti-smoking and health groups are willing to stoop down to the level of junk science to promote their agendas.
What is disturbing to me is not that the media would put forth such a shoddy scientific analysis and unsupportable conclusion. What disturbs me is that anti-smoking groups find this shoddy science to be convincing.
They are so biased in their views that they apparently care only about the direction of the results, not the scientific validity of the findings.
This is a sad state of affairs for the tobacco control movement, because it means that we are continuing to lose our scientific integrity. The political cause has become more important than the science.
Unfortunately, this makes us no better than the tobacco companies that we have consistently criticized for their own shoddy science.
This is nothing new. Who are you trying to convince here, yourself? This is ALL you and your cohorts have done from the start. The only difference now is how blatently transparent they are being about it....they don't even TRY to hide the lies anymore.
We need to take the high road and to protect the scientific integrity of our movement. In the long run, it does no good to stoop to the level of junk science to support our agenda.
There is NO scientific integrity to protect because you all never had any to start with. The level of junk science is the ONLY thing you all have ever used. The agenda was always the only thing that mattered and you all didn't care HOW you met your goal as long as YOUR GOAL was achieved.
It puts us on the road to the eventual loss of credibility and of the public's trust.
Waaaaaaaayyyyy too late to worry about that. Your credibility and trust was lost a long time ago, and yours personally was lost just last week with me.
Need a lie down, Idlex?
.
"It turns out that this probability is greater than 5%, the level generally considered statistically significant. Thus, the reported finding is not significantly different than one would expect by chance alone."
By comparrison, the RR's from SHS exposure are so small as to be virtually non-existent.
"Moreover, the overall reported decline in heart attacks is only 3%. This is such a small effect that there is no way to attribute the decline to the smoking ban."
Are you completely incapable of drawing any analogy here at all?
"Let me assure my readers that this particular analysis is meaningless."
We didn't even have to read beyond the headline to know this.
Who are you trying to convince,...us or the TC goons loyal to your particular branch of the sect?
"What is disturbing to me is not that the media would put forth such a shoddy scientific analysis and unsupportable conclusion. What disturbs me is that anti-smoking groups find this shoddy science to be convincing. They are so biased in their views that they apparently care only about the direction of the results, not the scientific validity of the findings."
You're kill'n me Doc.
The media has been the willing accomplice to the ftaud for several years now, this latest low point surprises no sane person.
The fact that your comrades are so willing to believe is no surprise either. It's faith, it's always been faith because there is no credible evidence. Faith in the dogma is required. You already know this.
Off topic, but point of interest, my 15 year old neice, who doesn't smoke, but follows this blog from time to time, believes that the TC mafia is a pack of theives.
She has no interest in smoking, because I told her not to take up the activity, ..not because it's bad,. and not because I personally don't want to see her take up the pastime, but specifically so she won't have to endure the Bull**it that I am currently enjoying at the hands of the Uber Elite Health Reich.
I always make it a point to tell her this while I smoke!
She "gets it"
Too bad the so called adult professionals in the TC mafia, can't comprehend at a 15 year old level.
Doctor Siegel assured his readers today, "that this particular analysis is meaningless. If anything, the data best support the conclusion that the smoking ban had no substantial effect on heart attack admissions."
A long time ago, far, far away, Doctor Siegel defended smoking bans that were being implemented by government on private property because, "I believe the health risks do rise to the level of being quite severe."
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 9:13 pm
Alright, "severe risk" removed, no "substantial effect" measured, experiment concluded.
Smoke 'em if ya got'em.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
doc says "Unfortunately, this makes us no better than the tobacco companies that we have consistently criticized for their own shoddy science. And maybe even worse, because the tobacco companies have at least made some changes in their representation of science to the public."
What shoddy science? the tobacco cos always said bans hurt business and they are right, and they always said shs does not harm nonsmokers and they are right. They have always acknowleged smoking causes lung cancer, after that was firmly established too.
So who's calling the tobacco co's science shoddy? -the same people who said Helena had a 40% drop, and now, england has a 40% drop in AMI's post ban.
I'd say such people are in no position to judge tobacco co's science as is or ever was shoddy.
EinsteinSmoked wrote:
"Alright, "severe risk" removed, no "substantial effect" measured, experiment concluded.
Smoke 'em if ya got'em."
ES is right, Dr. Siegel. Heart attack study after heart attack study shot down in flames....by you.
Your restaurant study, Kawachi, Hirayama, etc. studies countered with larger and more impressive studies.
As you said in your article I believe, you'd expect to see half on one side and half on the other. Isn't it time that you restate your conclusion from "Smoking must be banned" to "My study found a possible increase in risk for lung cancer. Others have not shown this risk. Seeing how I was brainwashed at the time I did this study, and I mean REALLY brainwashed, I probably shouldn't have been doing research of this kind at all."
LightningBoy asked: "Who are you trying to convince,...us or the TC goons loyal to your particular branch of the sect?"
I have no doubt that my readers understand these issues. It is the anti-smoking groups that don't seem to understand the basic scientific issues here. Or else, they do understand but they just don't care about the shoddy science - they see a PR opportunity and they are taking it. I'm not sure which it is but either one is not pretty.
Also, Dave K makes an excellent point: if the anti-smoking groups' scientific standards are so low, then what position are they in to be questioning the science of the tobacco companies? I agree - that is precisely my point.
All of this and more was authorized by “public health” many years ago. Its not about the alleged decrease in heart attack admissions (because of the smoking ban), it’s about the promotion of fear and hate; fear of SHS ,and hate for people who smoke. Finding accuracy in statistics/ data has simply become even more of an inconvenience than ever before. The whole lot of Anti-smokers, including those in the media, operate primarily under the banner of social engineering.
Public health endorsed the idea that demoralization is an effective way to treat those who do not fall in line with public health demands. This latest report just represents a backdoor version of public health sponsored demoralization coupled with political fraud.
Lightening boy, as my friend says always follow the money!
This whole thing is about money, and when the extremists lose their funding (IE contraband, rigorous scientific methods needed to get funding, etc)! Lets see how many would like to pay for their own way to conferences, get no money from one charity (but instead have it like Israel (?) where all funding goes into a pot and everyone fights for it based on the science, not the "needed" agendas. We have never seen "studies" being discovered after arguments that have been raised, to disprove our points. lol
PS DR where has the Saskatchewan study been published at? If it hasn't why not, since it was published in the "news"??
Oh shall we mention "studies" like this too??
The Effect of Legislation Concerning Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
on the Short-term Health of Hospitality Workers: A Canada – Italy
Comparison January 2007
By Delaine Barth
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/r...3/327&
bsid=1347
IE 2 different people compared for CO comparison of before/after measurements, due to high turnover.
Abstract
Background: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a combination of the smoke exhaled by smokers and the smoke burning from a cigarette, cigar or pipe that is not being inhaled. It contains over 4000 chemicals many of them being known carcinogens and toxins. The recently-identified hazards of ETS have resulted in the implementation of new legislation to protect non-smokers’ health in jurisdictions worldwide.
Purpose: This study tests the hypothesis that legislation eliminating ETS from all enclosed public places improves the health of hospitality workers.
Methods: This is a descriptive, case-series study, which investigates tobacco smoke exposure in non-smoking hospitality workers in Canada and Italy. Data was obtained by testing workers for levels of carbon monoxide before and immediately after working in venues where smoking was permitted and was not permitted. Workers also provided information on respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms.
Conclusion: Legislation eliminating ETS improves the health of hospitality industry workers.
You still think this is isolated and "unplanned"??
They have always acknowleged smoking causes lung cancer, after that was firmly established too.
It was??? When? Note that mere statistical correlations on self-selected samples of smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers, cannot establish causal role of tobacco smoke in lung cancer. Such correlations are at best a mere hint of possible causality. Replicating the hint thousand times, still amounts to a hint, not a scientific demonstration of causal relation.
Hence, that alleged "firm establishing" must have been after 2005 since, as late as that, the Pfizer sponsored researchers were still struggling, trying to make the smoking conditions bad enough so that smoking animals would die prematurely from lung cancers. The results went the "wrong" way, as they always did before for the last sixty years of massive pursuit -- the smoking animals, even under the very unnatural & heavy smoking compared to human smoking, outlived the non-smoking animals.
Before replying check some experimental studies that backfired (smoking animals lived longer, although you wouldn't know it from abstracts) given in the links in my previous post here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9399693/
#162447
Dr. Chad Cotti is doing a very large study of fatal heart attacks and smoking bans. He says he is finding a 5 percent decline that can be attributed to smoking bans. He says the big findings of Glantz came from studies that were too small. If the 5 percent finding holds up, what impact would that have?
Welcome back, Brian. You and both your common and uncommon sense have been sorely missed. And if you just so happen to know that NHS statistician... tell him the same.
Welcome back to Colin too. Great job at F2C.
Bill H--
I don't see how it can hold up. First place, 5% is likely too small a % to be meaningful, and the problem would then heavily lie in confounders. But to begin with, you'd somehow have to narrow things down to an "at risk" population-- probably mostly middle aged men with other known or suspected risk factors, who themselves were never-smokers, who frequented and continued to frequent "public" places both before and after the ban and were further not "exposed" from any other sources. And still, even then, you'd have a lot of confounders-- which might, for one example, include differences in diet among those eat out frequently and those who don't, and those who drink out frequently and those who don't, and a load of other differences, many of which might vary from person to person and not be amenable to group generalizations.
The question, too, would arise as to what % of men in that "at risk" category make up the total population of habitual pub-crawlers? (I note that increasingly most NYC bars are jammed with 20- somethings to the all-but-exclusion of other groups, and none of them would be likely to die of a heart attack w/i the next year, ban smoking or not.)
Ideal epidemiology (case/control) takes 2 groups of people who are fundamentally similar in almost all respects except that one is exposed to whatever it is you're testing and the other one isn't. My faith that you can "mathematically adjust" for everything else in the starry planet is, let's say, limited. Or IOW, I'd want to take narrowed beady eye to this guy's methodology.
:
Walt, I pointed out to Cotti that the population still exposed to smoke in St. Louis bars and restaurants were not likely candidates for fatal heart attacks. He said that a decline in active smoking in communities with a ban might explain the decline in fatal heart attacks.
An alternative version for the Daily Mail's study.
SHS SHOCK-
THE SMOKING BAN IN BARS AND RESTAURANTS
HAS NO EFFECT ON HEART ATTACKS IN NEARLY 50% OF NHS TRUSTS
Scientists and expert Tobacco Control Industry advocates have expressed shock and dismay to discover that the public smoking ban has had no effect in reducing heart attacks in 50% of NHS trusts, in fact many of the trusts have reported a statistically significant increase in heart attacks which has left the anti-smoker community baffled.
Dr Integrity, an anti-smoker veteran of over 20 years experience said "We cannot attribute any credibility to this study, it is well known that all NHS employees owe their livelihood to the Tobacco Companies, they each receive thousands of pounds every year in wages and the trusts themselves share a windfall in the region of £10 billion per annum, direct from smokers"
Amanda Standtall of the anti-smoker charity cASH called the study "Junk Science" and called for the government to enact new legislation to ban the publication of any study not approved by cASH.
GreatScot
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"He said that a decline in active smoking in communities with a ban might explain the decline in fatal heart attacks."
Smoking bans are said to make smokers quit or cut back, and smokers are said to be at higher risk than nonsmokers, so smokers would be the first ones not to have heart attacks.
"It appears that the sloppy science being promulgated by anti-smoking groups and researchers in the area of the evaluation of the effects of smoking bans on heart attacks has become so pervasive that it has infiltrated into the media itself. Now the media are conducting their own shoddy analyses."
Absolutely right. As if they need any encouragement! ASH (UK) have had to put a note on their website to explain that the drop in heart attacks was 3%, not 40% and that the media have exaggerated it. That must be a first.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.c....php?
page_id=48
"Absolutely right. As if they need any encouragement! ASH (UK) have had to put a note on their website to explain that the drop in heart attacks was 3%, not 40% and that the media have exaggerated it. That must be a first."
Yes, but I bet they didnt explain that the 3% drop was totally unremarkable...
...that it will be more like 1% - or even an increase - when the final data is in for all Trusts...
...that, even if there is a drop, it is impossible to link it to the smoking ban - or anything else - just by looking at bald numbers...
...that the basis of the comparison wan't one year vs. the previous year, but 9 months after vs. 9 months before - and that heart attacks are notoriously seasonally affected!...
...and that the 3% fall was heterogeneously distributed across
England, but, with a national smoking ban, it would have had to be homogeneous.
Now if ASH said all of this, they would be being honest...and that would really be a first!
OK Dr Siegel,how about stating what IS acceptable TC policy ? You have stated that your studies remain scientifically sound,as such you can date the period of time,how about providing some information about the timing of the demise in scientific credibility of the TC movement ? In your view are we talking about within the last 5 years or so,or longer ? When was the LAST scientifically credible research undertaken ? Of course i will perfectly understand a reluctance to answer these questions...
Hi Walt.
I haven't been away really, I'm always lurking around seeing what is going on. Mostly 'stand-offs' nowadays, sadly, although I really must single Rose out for special praise for her dogged research. She really ought to start her own blog, in my view, as she has too much to offer for it to be lost in the 'noise' on this site (and I mean no disrespect to anyone with this comment).
I feel frustrated most of the time - as we all do - but sometimes this grows into such intense anger that I have to back off and cool down a bit. Otherwise there would be one or more dead antis!
If I should meet up with said 'NHS Statistician' I will pass on your good wishes. Of course I would first have to find out who it is!
There are 1.5 million people employed by the UK NHS, you know. It is now Europe's largest employer (it only used to be second - but then the Red Army was disbanded!), so I can't imagine how you would expect me to know just anyone working for the NHS!
For anyone in the UK that would like to access the Government through the Freedom of Information Act, use this link:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
Nightlight,
The risk ratio between smokers over nonsmokers lung cancer prevalence is somewhere between 7 and 20.
I found the theoretical trend between smoking declines in the USA and following lung cancer declines within the expected time frame in 3 birth groups suports the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, and laryngel cancer. , but nothing else.
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
t...sonsmoking.html
Sure, in some cases 2+2 does not equal 4 either, (such as when an object approaches the speed of light) but in the real world, it appears declines in smoking among adults do, in the long term have some public health value. So, yes, the hypothesis between smoking and lung cancer, is not perfect science either, but it has been shown to make useful predictions. So, insofar as I'm concerned, that's a good definiton of science to use as applied science, as opposed to theoretical science, which you raise some valid issues which suggest smoking is not the whole explanation for lung cancer.
I think that's exactly what all this 40% decline bull shit amounts to. Antismoking groups come up with this hypothetical hypothesis that shs elevates risk of various diseases about .3, and they know that is theoretical sceince, so they are desparately trying to convert that to applied science by falsely claiming bans lead to 40% declines in heart attacks. ERGO, acording to them, that bans do have some public health value. Just like I found a 50% reduction in adult smoking caused about a 10% decline in lung cancer over the long haul.
Now, if we eliminate 50% of a risk ratio between 7 and 20 from the adult population in the USA ( active smoking) and that results in a 10% drop in lung cancer 30 years later.... then one has to wonder how eliminating maybe 20% of nonsmokers exposure to shs via a ban (therefore 20% of a .3 elevated risk) can result in an immediate drop of 40% of all heart attacks.
So, yeh! all scinece does have some limitations, but as doc said in his math analysis of british heart attacks here, the probability that that sceicne is correct is very low, in this case, but high enough in the active smoking lung cancer case.
science is a philosophy too, my problem has been with the philosophy of antismokers who claim shs causes disease, they are just plain not following carful scientific protocol, cause they know that if they did, they could not make such claims.
http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/2008/j...rant-on-
england
“I don’t care – black, white, red, green. I don’t give a damn about your colour, this is England and they’re taking it off us. You can’t smoke in a building, you can’t smoke in your own car.”
Ooops..., that was John Lydon aka Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten.
Brian
You are very kind, but the Doctor was concerned about the fraudulent science, and as a lifelong, amateur gardener so was I.
If I had a blog no one would read my ramblings, but here there are so many clever people, who I rely on to pull me up sharply if I go off into a flight of fantasy.Several minds are better than one.
After all, the whole point is to find out the truth, fabrications or close misses are no use to anyone.
Incidentally, the closest thing I can find to tobacco leaves are potato leaves, they have solanine and solanesol in them.
However, thats where my kitchen alchemy ends, and if they have never been used before, I'd guess there's a very good reason for it.
Don't undersell yourself, Rose.
I have followed much of your 'ramblings' over recent times, and I have been particularly impressed by, for example, everything that you have dug up (*) about niacin - to the extent that I now make a point of identifying its roots (*) to whoever may listen.
What you are doing well is to see links between otherwise disparate facts, none of which are necessarily new, but when reviewed in the manner that you do, it does lead one to rethink the received wisdom. This is a valid channel of scientific enquiry in my view and, just because no-one else has made the same links in the past, doesn't render them invalid. There is still room for original discovery in scientific research. Thankfully not all science has yet been reduced to the rather squalid behaviours encountered in small effect epidemiology.
Please don't think I was trying to banish you into the outer reaches of the blogosphere, I wasn't. It's just that this is Michael's blog, and any discussion remains valid only as long as his latest post sits near the top of the page. If he isn't interested in pursuing any of the lines of research that you throw up (which he clearly isn't) then your findings get lost - possibly for all time. This is a shame, and I feel you deserve the opportunity to have a permanently available catalog of your own work - hence the thought about your own blog.
I would suggest that the least you should do is to make sure you maintain your own permanent library of everything you dig up (*), since you never know, you may just be going somewhere with it.
I remain a fan, whatever you choose to do.
.
(* gardening puns!)
.
One slight problem Brian, you are talking to a computer illiterate, one fingered typist on a borrowed computer that was previously used by an impromptu DJ.
I don't even know how to do italics!
I never learnt.
Hows that for honesty?
Dave, RRs and statistical associations on self-selected samples of smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers, no matter how strong, do not establish causal role of tobacco smoke in lung cancers.
Otherwise, respirators could be declared as a cause of reduced lifespans, since in any age group repirator users will have reduced lifespan compared to respirator ex-users, who will have reduced lifespand compared to never-users of respirators. This relation will hold across countries, cities, decades, professions, age groups,... Yet repirator extends lifespan of it its user. Similarly, even though people who use sunglasses will have more sunburns than never-users of sunglasses... yet sunglasses protect against sun's UV (albeit only partially).
In other words, the statistical correlation of some "risk factor" X and some 'X-related' disease D(X) on self-selected classes of subjects who differ in X will exist whether X is the cause of D(X) or whether X is therapeutic or protective against D(X) or against some of the causes of D(X). The existence of correlation of X and D(X), no matter how high or consistent, universal,... is a mere hint that:
a) X may be a cause of D(X).
b) X has protective/theraupeutic role in the causal chain leading to D(X).
c) Some other factor Y causes X and D(X) (or increases their chances).
Normal science follows up such hint with hard science methods (experiments, randomized intervention trials,... etc) to establish which role (a), (b) or (c) does X have in the generally complex, largely unknown (especially at the level of cellular biochemical networks) graph of causes and effects leading to D(X).
Yet, the antismoking "science" after 60 years of vast research efforts, including lots of hard science (see links above on animal experiments), is still stuck in the hint phase. Even fifty years ago, in 1958, Ronald A. Fisher pointed out this very problem of the antismoking "science" of that time:
QUOTE
But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind...
Paper: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/math...t/
fisher274.pdf
Yet, half a century later, the antismoking "science" is still stuck in that same statistical hint phase Fisher noticed half a century ago. And it is not that they didn't try using hard science. Thousands of animal experiments were done, but they all went the "wrong" way -- smoking animals lived longer. Several randomized intervention trials on humans were done as well, but they only showed that randomly selected 'quit group' of smokers (those urged & helped to quit) ended up with more lung cancers than 'smoking group' (those left to smoke as they wished).
See here: http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray...ay/
TSSOASb.html
http://www.forces.org/writers/ha...iles/
murder.htm
and animal experiments: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9399693/
#162447
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...osts?
page=36#36
http://www.imminst.org/forum/ind...ndpost&
p=167231
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...osts?
page=63#63
The most interesting, and the least talked about by antismoking "science", results of hard science of 'tobacco smoke' are numerous protective and therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke. Regarding the lung cancer & emphysema, of particular interest is the upregulation by tobacco smoke of the main internal antioxidants & detox enzymes in human body: glutathione, catalase and SOD, all nearly doubled through some still unkown biochemical effects tobacco smoke. The neutrophiles, the front line defenders against infections & toxins, are also upregulated by 20-30 percent, which along with the multiple anti-inflammatory mechanisms of TS, support model (b) as the explanation for statistical associations of emphysema and bronchitis with smoking.
This implies that smoking will nearly double the detox rates for great variety toxic & carcinogenic exposures at work or from person's environment. It will also increase resilience against variety of infectious agents. Hence, what hard science of tobacco smoking has actually shown is that the statistical hint is explained the best by mechanism (b) listed above -- smoking is a form of self-medication -- the substantial upregulation by tobacco smoke of key detox enzymes & neutrophiles, alleviates the effects and protects against great variety of toxic, carcinogenic and infectious exposures, which themselves are causes of 'smoking-related' diseases, such as lung cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis,... Tobacco smoking is thus is a mere statistical marker or a proxy for the toxic exposures that themselves cause 'smoking related' diseases (in contrast to tobacco smoke, hard science had no problems demostrating these causal effects in experiments).
Further, the proportion of smokers using smoking as self-medication is increasing since under the current social & economic pressures against smokers, those who didn't really need it have quit. Namely, the nicotine craving can be easily satisfied through patches or gums, but no other substance natural or synthetic offers as broad spectrum of beneficial immune and neuroprotective effects as tobacco smoke. Hence, people who continue smoking in the face of the horrendous abuses of smokers by governments & businesses, are increasingly those who absolutely need it due to the unique array of therapeutic & protective effects of tobacco smoke. Therefore, the statistical correlations between smoking and diseases will continue to strengthen, RRs will continue ballooning until the antismoking fraud bubble bursts, as all big lies eventually do.
Italics are easy, Rose.
You just need to lean to the left at an angle of about 45 degrees when you look at the screen!
See, nothing is ever as hard as it seems!
(or you could just precede the text to be italicised with the sequence 'left arrow' i 'right arrow' then follow the text with 'left arrow' /i 'right arrow' - where 'left arrow' means the key with that symbol on it (SHIFT-comma) etc.)
.
Thank you Brian
"Dave, RRs and statistical associations on self-selected samples of smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers, no matter how strong, do not establish causal role of tobacco smoke in lung cancers."
I think they do increase the probabliity the hypothesis is correct though. Note I do point out that overall, the relationship is probably that smoking is a co-carcinogen because in some parts of the world, smoking populations do not exhibit high lung cancer rates, even after the practice has been established beyond one lifespan. and the historical record clearly indicates smoking was common in the 18th century in the USA without a high lung cancer prevalence.
health researchers do have to resort to some philisophical approach to do research because health research can never be an exact science. Life forms are just too complex, and poorly understood. Dr siegel, you, and I all have different philosophies on how to approach and intrepret observations.
If you meant I self-selected samples of smokers, in my report, that is not true. I used all the data available for the USA which was adjusted to the 1970 standard population. I presented all the data given in the Harris report on history of smoking by birth group. Frankly my best guess is that smoking contributes about 30-50% to our national lung cancr rates.
The best postulated mechanism I know of is that people convert pah's to dihydroxy pahs via aryl hydrocarbon hydroxlyase. This postulate is steenghtened by the observation that smokers deficient in that enzyme rarely develop lung cancer.
it could be aniamls do not make that enzyme, if could be humans evolved making that enzyme in response to discovering fire and inhaling that smoke.... only one example of how complicated the whole subject is, and why one cannot assume anything from an elevated rr of 0.3,
If you meant I self-selected samples of smokers,...
No, I was talking about people selecting themselves into the 3 types.
I think they do increase the probabliity the hypothesis is correct though.
You don't seem to appreciate enough the fundamental limitation of the statistical correlations on self-selected subjects -- no amount of replication of the same kind of correlations will answer the question where does smoking fit in the complex causal graph leading to 'smoking related' disease such as lung cancer, is it (a), (b) or (c)?
You don't increase the probability for (a) relative to (b) or (c) by replicating the same kinds of observation, as Fisher noted in this context. You merely increase the probability of (a) OR (b) OR (c). It is the methods of hard science that in normal science follow up such statistical hint and decide which of the models (a), (b) or (c) is responsible for the consistency and strength of the observed correlations. (Buying FDA or CDC bureaucrats or university researchers to parrot the pharmaceutical industry's antismoking PR doesn't make (a) more likely, either.)
The hard science supports (b) in two ways:
1) by showing that the smoking animals live longer and by failire to cause lung cancers in animal experiments, lowering probability of (a) and,
2) by discovering multitude of protective and therapeutic effects of TS against well established carcinogens & toxins, supporting thus the model (b).
The best postulated mechanism I know of is that people convert pah's to dihydroxy pahs via aryl hydrocarbon hydroxlyase.
One can "postulate" (you meant hypothesize) anything one wishes. It is the randomized experiment that backs it up of falsifies it. So, I was asking whether you can point to some experiment (animal or human, that has been replicated) where smoking was shown to prematurely kill smokers via lung cancer? Hypothesis doesn't prove anything. Randomized experiments do.
Michael Siegel reports that 3 British newspapers came out with the same story. These were the Daily Mail article by Rebecca Camber at 12:10am on 14/06/08, the Daily Telegraph article by Patrick Sawer at 8:49am on 14/06/08, and the Sunday Times article by Will Pavia on 15/06/08. If they bother to read them all, most people will read them one after another, and might miss some interesting similarities in the three articles. For example:
1.Mail: nearly six in ten NHS trusts are reporting a dramatic fall in the number of heart attack patients being admitted to emergency wards.
compared with
Telegraph: Nearly six in ten NHS trusts are reporting a fall in the number of heart attack patients being admitted to emergency wards
In fact, since the Sunday Times article refers to the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph article is almost a word for word copy of the Mail article, the story clearly originates from the Mail.
But is it the work of Rebecca Camber? The article cites "figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Daily Mail", and further down says that "The research looked at admissions for heart attacks from 114 trusts...". Did Camber really compile these figures herself in the offices of the Daily Mail, or did somebody else? Newspaper reporters and editors generally get figures from trusted sources. They don't work them out for themselves.
Unless Camber had enough time on her hands to be able to get hold of the raw numbers, and the mathematical savvy to work out percentages and so on, it really looks like someone else must have done the 'research'. But who?
An interesting item from those who seek to defend the credibility of science,much like Dr Siegel says he wishes to,well maybe apart from a few studies concerning bar staff... http://www.data-yard.net/
science...bc_ets_2008.pdf
I really must single Rose out for special praise for her dogged research. She really ought to start her own blog, in my view, as she has too much to offer for it to be lost in the 'noise' on this site (and I mean no disrespect to anyone with this comment). - Brian Bond
I'll second that. She's so darn dogged. I told Rose how much I admired her a month or two back. The nicotonic acid = niacin = Vitamin B3 is part of my received wisdom now.
If she can't do it herself, I suggest a cooperative effort to dig back through the Haloscan comments, and put to together the whole Rose Garden of assembled snippets (*) of wisdom. And then put them up on a website somehere, not as a blog, but as a reference.
Several people could do this in their spare time, collecting together her postings, and emailing them to one person who would put them online, possibly nicely cross-referencing them all (and maybe including some of the posts she responds to). It might help if we knew where to start.
Meanwhile, Rose could carry on doing what she does best, posting stuff up on Michael Siegel's blog comments.
(*) gardening pun
The Daily Hate Mail, a rag which warmly applauded Hitler, supported the British Union of Fascists (BUF) as well as supporting Franco's forces and their toppling of a democratically elected government during the Spanish Civil War?
I would have thought such an upstanding publication would have been above whipping up hysteria to justify smoking bans
idlex
Thats a very kind idea, but I started plaguing this site in November after I had grown the plant, it would put you to a lot of trouble, though I will admit, I would be glad of a second mind to review it.
All the pieces have to fit perfectly and I worry about any glaring errors I may have missed.
Doctor Siegel: “We need to take the high road and to protect the scientific integrity of our movement. In the long run, it does no good to stoop to the level of junk science to support our agenda. It puts us on the road to the eventual loss of credibility and of the public's trust”.
Credibility was lost with the first lie: that science had proven conclusively that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer and heart disease. Since then the public has been bombarded with blatant misrepresentations of the science surrounding secondhand smoke. You’ve brought a good many of these exaggerations and distortions of the truth to light in your own writing.
The public was deceived to justify smoking bans and overt discrimination against smokers. Public health groups are “willing to stoop down to the level of junk science to promote their agendas” because they fear the backlash that will come when the public realizes they’ve been conned.
The tobacco control movement will be forced to tell bigger and bigger lies and use more and more junk science to cover up the lies they’ve already told.
You already know how angry your regular readers are about the dishonestly. I suspect you know how the public will react when the truth comes out, as it eventually must. The tobacco control movement could come down like a house of cards in a hailstorm.
Just the thought of it has this old smoker grinning like a cheshire cat.
"So, I was asking whether you can point to some experiment (animal or human, that has been replicated) where smoking was shown to prematurely kill smokers via lung cancer?"
sure, all the epi studies which found smokers die of LC more often than nonsmokers, and no study which found the opposite. So, the studys are reproducible which is one corner stone of science.
"no amount of replication of the same kind of correlations will answer the question where does smoking fit in the complex causal graph leading to 'smoking related' disease such as lung cancer, is it (a), (b) or (c)?"
there are more than the same kind of experiments, my time trend study is an example of different kind of experiment than an epi study and finds the same thing. I cited other time trend studies which also concluded smoking causes LC.
Is the claim smoking causes LC perfectly proven? of course not... but is it very likely true?...yes
Matt: Credibility was lost with the first lie: that science had proven conclusively that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer and heart disease.
The antismoking "science" has been a continuous series of lies since nazi started it in 1930s then UK revived it in 1950, then USA took the lead from 1960s and on. The only downside to the 'second hand smoke' that it is not quite as good for you as the primary smoke.
If you check the other links in my posts above, you will find that after over half a century of massive and expensive research, inhalation of tobacco smoke hasn't killed one smoking lab animal by lung cancer or any other 'smoking related' disease.
The only "little" differences between the smoking and nonsmoking lab animals are that smoking ones live significantly longer (e.g. nonsmoking hamsters 15-16 months, smoking ones 18-19), accumulate less of industrial toxins and carcinogens in their tissues, stay thinner (typically ~20 percent), perfom better on congnitive tests,...
Of course, unlike humans, the smoking animals aren't brainwashed with antismoking "death curse" which is the only aspect of smoking in our modern day antismoking Matrix, that actually harms the health of smokers. Unlike us, they enjoy the pure, unspoiled therapeutic and rejuvenating magic of this ancient medicinal miracle plant, the way hundreds of millions of smokers did for over eight thousand years until recent decades. As soon as smokers shake off this pseudo-scientific 'death curse' and leave our antismoking Matrix, the antismoking scam will perish overnight.
Dave: sure, all the epi studies which found smokers die of LC more often than nonsmokers, and no study which found the opposite. So, the studys are reproducible which is one corner stone of science.
Epidemiological studies are neither randomized (since smokers, ex-smokers & never-smokers are self-selected categories by the subjects themselves) nor are they experiments (with complete freedom to control exposure and numerous other environmental & biochemical parameters in a randomized manner). Such statistical findings, including secular trends, even if one overlooks numerous anomalies, dignostic bias... which weaken them substantially, are therefore still perfectly consistent with any of the following hypotheses:
(a) Smoking causes LC
(b) Smoking is protective against carcinogens which themselves cause LC (hence those more exposed to them would smoke more often since smoking alleviates toxicity of such exposures)
(c) Smoking and LC have overlapped causes in some combination of genetic & environmental factors (e.g. some such dual effect genes were found recently; environmental: e.g. chronic stress, socio-economic hardships...).
There is more than enough hard science (such as truly randomized large scale animal experiments) which back up (b) in many ways (e.g. near doubling of key internal antioxidants & detox enzymes: glutathione, catalase & SOD; multiple anti-inflammatory mechanisms of TS, upregulation of neutrophiles, analgesic, anti-apoptotic, neuroprotective & stress reducing effects of TS,... all supporting the self-medication mechanism underlying the observed statistical correlations) , as indicated earlier.
These experiments also eliminate (a) more directly, by demonstrating that smoking animals live substantially longer (~20+ percent) than non-smoking animals, even under very unfavorable smoking conditions (extremely high dose, near letal concetrations, no breaks, no natural feedbacks from animals in dosing and timing...). No matter how much verbal squirming and semantic gerrymandering they try, there is no logically or scientifically coherent way to translate the plain fact, unambiguously established in the lab experiments: "substance X extends the lifespan of its users" as "substance X kills its users" via lung cancer or any other 'X-related' diseases.
Recalling further that as late as 2004-2005 experiments sponsored by Pfizer, which makes billions from its antismoking investments and is thus highly motivated to find some harm from TS, they still couldn't rig the smoking conditions bad enough to avoid the "trap" of longer lifespans of smoking rats and mice. If that is the crowning result of the sixty years of highly motivated ($$$) efforts to demonstrate within hard science any harm to health from TS at all, the antismoking big lie is in much worse trouble than anyone could have dreamt of. However motivated and after all these years, they simply could not make smoking animals die sooner than non-smoking ones, short of outright asphyxiating them (the kind of "harmful" effect you can induce with plain water or any food & beverage we consume daily).
That is a perfectly unambiguous hard fact that I find the most fascinating about it -- the ancient medicinal plant with its finely honed 'intelligent' biochemical networks against the big pharma & big 'health' bureaucracies with all their resources & scientific networks of neurons, battling it for over sixty years, and the ancient miracle plant is still beating them.
David: "there are more than the same kind of experiments, my time trend study is an example of different kind of experiment than an epi study and finds the same thing. I cited other time trend studies which also concluded smoking causes LC."
To avoid arguing semantics of terms such as "scientific", "hard science", "randomized" or "experiments", my point is that such statistical results even if taken at face value 100%, still cannot distinguish between models (a), (b) or (c). Therefore they are the "same kinds of findings" that Fisher objected already in 1958 about antismoking "science" of that era -- they are the same kind in the sense of having the same blind spots, the same low resolution regarding the distinction between the competing models (a),(b) or (c). The hard science (truly randomized lab experiments) directly contradict (a) and supports chiefly the model (b) (or rather, a combination of mainly (b) and some (c)). If Fisher thought that antismoking "science" was already running for too long in the same methodologically low-resolution circles back then in 1958, he would be spinning in his grave, could he see that they are still peddling the 1001 variants of that same story in 2008. (Not that they haven't tried the hard science; they did, but it always backfired with "wrong" results. So, what can poor "scientific" mercenaries do but parrot what "works" and keep quiet about the results of hard science.)
David: "Is the claim smoking causes LC perfectly proven? of course not... but is it very likely true?...yes"
Due to the fundamental limitation of epidemiology regarding distinction between (a), (b) or (c), such statement is an act faith. Considering that hard science (the lab experiments) has already obsoleted the question altogether (in favor of (b) and (c)), the faith in the hypothesis "smoking causes LC" is no different than faith in gigantic tower of turtles supporting the Earth-platter from falling down. Only the decades of massive antismoking PR backed up by the big pharma & 'health' bureaucracies, helped by the scientific ignorance and naivete of the general public, is still propping that theory.
Nightlight,
Are your trying to say that tobacco smoke is perfectly safe for healthy people?
Welcome to the club. I agree 100%. "Conventional Wisdom" hasn't been this wrong about anything since the Earth was flat and the Sun orbited the Earth.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
The tobacco control movement will be forced to tell bigger and bigger lies and use more and more junk science to cover up the lies they’ve already told.
You already know how angry your regular readers are about the dishonestly. I suspect you know how the public will react when the truth comes out, as it eventually must. The tobacco control movement could come down like a house of cards in a hailstorm.
Just the thought of it has this old smoker grinning like a cheshire cat.
Matt | Homepage | 06.19.08 - 3:45 pm | #
My belief is that there are enough Antis that really don't care if SHS is a lie or the truth. If it was proven to non-smokers that the SHS propaganda, was simply that; the Antis would still be out there "denormalizing" smokers.
Why?
1. They DON'T like the smell.
2. They DO like the fact that their closet BIGOTED tendencies have finally found a group that is Politically Correct to be BIGOTED against. The Antis will not relinquish the freedom of their newly out-of-closet BIGOTRY without a fight.
"If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon. " - George Aiken
One more thing. Anecedotal??
I had a friend that quit smoking, and approximately 6 or 7 years later she died. She was 51 years old. Her diagnosis was LUNG CANCER. Strange thing about this LUNG CANCER though, it was neither on the lung, nor in the lung. It was in the chest cavity between the lungs. The tumor had wrapped around the esophogus. I asked an RN if this would be considered lung cancer, and was told "NO". However, the Diagnosis WAS LUNG CANCER.
Anecdotal?? Or an every day occurrence?
Ladyteal asked, "Anecdotal?? Or an every day occurrence?"
It could be both. I had the same thing happen with a family member. Cancer of the ??? outside of the lungs. The pronouncing physician asked if she was a smoker. She wasn't. He was surprised so I guess he wanted to count it as lung cancer. I don't know if he did or not.
Here are a pair of links to Standard Certificates of Death. On the second page you'll see where smoking was listed as a significant condition.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/147...re/F1?
highres=y
http://www.biomedcentral.com/147...re/F2?
highres=y
No mention of obesity in a patient with diabetes who died of heart failure. Maybe the patient was skinny, I don't know. But there seems to be a lot of room for the Pronouncing Doctor to practice creative writing. I wouldn't be surprised to see one that claimed "death by chocolate."
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Off Topic, I noticed over at Dr. Mercola's site that the Vitamin War is heating up. Canada has proposed legislation that would make OTC supplements such as vitamin C illegal. A quick glance found words as Nazis, Stalinists, Hitler etc...I liked the ones that stated Big Pharma and Friends are behind it. Pretty interesting because most people on his site are anti-tobacco but hell we warned them. I will support their right of choice to the very end because it is also my right of choice. I would hope this would wake them up to things in general but I doubt it. Just a thought for the day. Have a good one. Day that is and while your at it have a good smoke also but I won't force you if you do not endulge.
Who are the people making the "Protections" claims? and are they really credible? is where the focus should be. TC may have been a legitimate grass roots lobby once upon a time, today it is just a means to an end. Lots of cash and diversionary tactics to avoid real community issues.
Had you been paying attention, you would know why Philip Morris is singing along with TC health claims.
It's great for PR and increases their profits tremendously while selling fewer products, Doubly advantageous in connection to "disease management" when you successfully shift the hatred away from the corporate world and on to the clients, your product brand and your stock values soar.
Didn’t anyone notice the price of PM stock lately; after the past decade of tobacco controls? It tripled.
At the same time as the great Houdini and wordsmith extraordinaire Stanton Glanz, discovered way back in 1984, the Tobacco companies want to make smoking "an adult choice" which drives a belief in the youngsters they can move into adulthood when they start to smoke.
The cool gang who don't smoke? The race car fans who go out and but a Viper or an Aston Martin, knowing full well; they can not drive it on a public road as it is meant to be driven [according to the promo] within the confines of the law. Or the Basketball fans who believe pants with a crotch at the knees somehow will make them look more athletic. The food nuts that are racing to buy “pro-biotic foods” which really are not helpful in any way, because those biologicals have a hard time surviving the horrors of stomach acids.
Deny it all day long if you like; smokers enjoy the effects they receive by smoking that is the primary reason why they smoke. If as you claim they are just lowly drug addicts, what kind of heartless reprobate would be attacking anyone or demanding taxation because of an addiction?
Smoking has a calming effect which counters the chaos and stress of modern day life, a moment of meditation if you will. The physical effects are well documented and well known in the medical community. The clearing of ones mind when problem solving, or as a protection against the cold [See Visio constriction and endothelial function [Or disfunction for lobby convenience]if you don’t understand it]
If you want to stay alert you might buy a coffee, another legal product no one is denouncing, at least not yet.
The government is simply pulling another tax grabbing marketing scam, which allows them to ignore real problems we all as a community would love to see someone deal with; such as property rights and excessive taxation, or how about just the price of Gas?
They deliberately create a need or a fear by paying lobby groups and lobbies pretending to be charities, who, through the ad agencies, purchase an ad campaign, with your money, complete with focus groups who rate catch phrases, You know the ones they repeat over and over as though they all have a hard wired voice box, connected to propaganda one central broadcasting studios.
Governments are then empowered to spend a ton of your taxes to deal with the crisis they purchased, again handing more money to the loudest lobbies, to continue more of stage one.
They always demand a lot more of those taxes as their solution in controlling a person's actions, using poverty, emotional blackmail and fear as advertising tools.
Taxation and criminal fines are rarely effective in actually doing anything beyond increasing poverty and through that more crime.
Which enables once again; a need for more police and tighter controls. Again instilling more financial punishment. The whole "protection" racket scam is defined as “Social Marketing” at Health Canada
It is really hard for most people to admit you are being brainwashed, to believe the impossible, especially when it is your own government doing the washing. Try to see beyond it and a lot of the haze [that is your life as a slave] becomes a lot clearer.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...c/index-
eng.php
"Social Marketing is "the application of marketing technologies developed in the commercial sector to the solution of social problems where the bottom line is behaviour change." It involves: "the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of society."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
Dr. Siegel wrote, "the sloppy science being promulgated by anti-smoking groups and researchers in the area of the evaluation of the effects of smoking bans on heart attacks "
This is not "sloppy science". This is "Lies." From Appendix I in Brains
Let us suppose that I earn $500,000 a year as a fast-talking lawyer. I then go on to run for public office, and to boost my image I proclaim that I believe in the importance of giving to those less fortunate. I adopt an earnest and heartfelt look and state that I give regularly to both organized charity and to the poor and homeless I encounter on the streets. I go on to emphasize that I maintain my giving year in and year out, no matter what my financial situation or pressures may be, and that I will carry similar dedication and selflessness to my career as an elected official.
In truth, my “regular contributions” consist of my dropping a shiny new penny into a Salvation Army bucket each Christmas, and then tossing a somewhat grubbier one at a homeless guy who’s sleeping under a blanket (while being careful not to get too close).
Did I tell a lie with my above proclamation? Technically, no… I do contribute regularly, and I said nothing about the amount. However anyone in their right minds and with a sense of fairness would certainly argue that I had not been truthful.
A great number, perhaps even the vast majority, of the statements made by Crusaders in pursuit of smoking bans are of roughly the same quality when it comes to truthfulness as our lawyer’s statement above. David Kessler, past head of the Food and Drug Administration, in commenting on claims about drug effectiveness, drew the distinction between a statement being “Accurate” and being “True.” This distinction applies perfectly to our pseudo-philanthropic barrister, as well as to much of the material present in the ads and public statements of Crusaders: his statement would indeed be accurate, but in the wider sense of the real meaning of truth, it would not be true. (Gina Kolata, “Stung by Courts…” New York Times 10/15/02).
The scientists and researchers upon whom we all depend for accurate information in order to make informed judgements about our lives are simply and clearly lying to us nowadays. And perhaps even worse than that, they stoop to covering up those lies by censoring those who would expose them. See:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
They are Liars and they should be ignominiously stripped of their academic, scientific, and professional credentials for their flagrant abuse of them.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Are your trying to say that tobacco smoke is perfectly safe for healthy people?
It is not only perfectly safe, but it is the single most beneficial medicinal substance, natural or synthetic bar none, humans have ever known. Nothing else comes even close to the breadth and depth of the therapeutic, protective and rejuvenating magic of this miracle medicine, or as the ancient medicine men and shamans would put it, it is the most precious gift of gods to humans. In our modern language we might characterize it as a 'complex biochemical network' (an intelligent, anticipatory, goal seeking, self-assembling natural distributed computer, like human brain) amazingly well tuned for the symbiotic relation with the biochemical networks of the human organism.
Last year, I joined a discussion thread in the nootropics (smart drugs) forum about "paradox" of smoking being protective against Parkinson's disease. Knowing that 'MAO B inhibition' (MAO B enzyme increases with aging and senility, which lowers the levels of dopamine & norepinephrine) is a 'holy grail' for the 'smart drugs' folks, I entered the thread to point out the remarkable MAO B inhibitory properties of tobacco smoke -- over time, tobacco smoke reduces MAO B levels by 40% and slows down MAO B rise with aging, resulting in smokers in their 50s having MAO B levels of non-smokers in their 20s. The 'smart drug' selegiline (or deprenyl, a synthetic MAO B inhibitor, used as antidepressant, also in combination with nicotine for smoking cessation) is revered as a fountain of youth in these same smart drugs & life extension circles. While they appreciated the info, they were quick to point out the alleged "downsides" of smoking. These are thoughtful, polite, medically and biochemically well educated folks (mostly college, grad students & postdocs in these fields, debating ever day the finer details of biochemical mechanisms behind latest nootropics and life-extension drugs).
After their general arguments parroting the conventional antismoking mythology fizzled out, I challenged them to show me any hard science result (replicated experiments) demonstrating any harm at all to the health of smoker from tobacco smoke. Since these guys spend hours every day searching pubmed & google scholar, it took them no time to bring up real experimental papers which, judging by the abstracts, appeared to show harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Well, upon closer reading of the actual data in their strongest 2004 paper (The [supposed] Proof), it turned out the appearance of harm was a mere verbal sleight hand in the weasel-worded abstract. The data on their own showed that the health and lifespan of the smoking rats benefited substantially, despite the best efforts of the Pfizer sponsored researchers to cause harm by hook or by crook. If you check links from my earlier posts above ( http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9399693/
#162447 ), you will see that this longevity "paradox" has plagued smoking animal experimenters for decades, and to this day they still don't know how to get around it, short of asphyxiating the animals with extremely heavy smoke (the latter won't do, though, since you can show the same kind of "harm" by making them drink plain water, which would kill them as well).
That's how potent and benevolent this ancient medicinal plant is -- it simply can't do harm in normal human smoking (with natural feedback controlled pacing & dosing e.g. you can't kill yourself by fast chain smoking - one will get so nauseous after a dozen or so of cigarettes that even the most testosterone driven teen showing off would have to stop hours before an overdose would kill him). The debate went on for couple more months, with the same cycle repeating throughout. They just couldn't find anything that could survive more careful examination. By the end, I realized that smoking is much better for health than even I imagined when I joined that discussion.
Once you realize that and shake off for good the 'death curse' ("smoking kills"...etc) of our modern day witch doctors, the smoking will become not only even more healthy for you, but far more pleasant as well. Imagine how it feels like while understanding at the core of your being, because that is how it truly is, that each long healthy, joyful puff, as these two finely honed biochemical networks are gently intertwining in their ancient symbiotic dance, is adding about equal time to your lifespan.
Ladyteal, EinsteinSmoked -
the people mentioned on both your posts with cancer outside the lungs would both have had mesothelioma, an asbestos 'signature'disease.
This is living, close-to-home verification of already established, if unmentioned, fact, with some of this covered (far down) below.
I've just tried a post which didn't work out, saw some new posts coming back which said pretty much what I was trying to say only better, but I'm used to that, so if the 'save worked, I'm putting this on anyway.
Hope it makes sense to somebody.
Hi, guys,
jumping up and down and cheering back here, and so happy also to see the informative comments of multiple people who should be here more often, PLEASE.
(And hi to Christopher Snowdon - glad to see you here.
Don't know if my email made it, but if there's a problem with that, no matter.)
I would beg to differ on one point, though - 'dogged' (although it applies) is not the term that leaps to mind when referring to Rose's research - 'brilliant' is.
And I do strongly agree that she should have her highly important finds and conclusions collected and posted on her own blog - as long as it doesn't deprive the rest of us here of her presence and entirely essential input.
As stated, she's located and verified a remarkable assortment of essential facts as well as demonstrating a considerable talent for association.
Rose, if you don't set aside your natural modesty long enough to recognise how important your work is,
much of this may be, as has been already pointed out, lost and perhaps even the potential of other related important puzzle-pieces and correlations with it.
You tend to find exactly the sort of principles and basics most carefully concealed, because they demonstrate how (inconvenient) truth must logically be, in order to be consistent with the facts.
When I termed you a one-woman world-saver, I was merely being descriptive; nobody can accurately extrapolate unless from accurate facts, and, in this case, they are particularly hard to find, having had a century of industry muddying the waters in this area.
But basic facts which determine probablities and principles are the essentials you tend to seek and find.
And you're hardly likely to wander off into 'flights of fancy', although intuitive leaps have often led to major discoveries.
It's when we fail to question long-held beliefs or the apparently obvious that we unthinkingly 'take on faith' that we can miss the signs of faulty ground on which our assumptions may have been carefully shored, and which can prevent us from understanding or even seeing the correct approach when 'you can't get there from here'.
Either way, one can go very, very wrong working in a perfectly logical fashion from what appear to be perfectly solid or indicative facts due to lack of not only directly related but 'surrounding' information, because the facts known fit until more's discovered.
I actually have some expertise in this area...
Haven't seen that in your work, though.
I'm kind of stuck for 'computer stuff' at the moment, as my (borrowed in my case as well) computer, while letting me type, otherwise is working at a crawl, so I'm running scans and waiting to see if I can save a document before shutting down - can't look up anything right now, but the following regards info almost certainly known, if overlooked, already posted on here somewhere and in any event can be found by anyone with a working 'puter or supplied later, if desired...
Re the supposed drop in heart attacks in Britain; such problems as these are linked closely with ambient air pollution, diesel exhaust being the most damaging of traffic emissions.
Relatively recently published research had indicated that children (around the world, where applicable) in diesel school buses were generally exposed to more asthma-inducing, carcinogenic, heart-attack-causing diesel exhaust chemicals and particulate inside the busses than out.
In many areas, there was agitation to either have the exhaust more adequately filtered or to switch to cleaner-burning engines.
In at least some cases, school and/or other buses, attention having been drawn to these, did have diesel emissions reduced, although funding (it's for the children) was, in many cases, a difficult-to-virtually insurmountable problem...
Heart attacks and other such responses to traffic pollution have consistently shown themselves to be tightly linked, with even small variations producing a matched response in exposed humans.
While seasonal variation, delayed report rates for hospital admissions and various other facters preclude the possibility of an immediate and accurate assessment of hospital admissions for heart attack over the previous year, the corresponding long-term, gradual decline for such human effect invariably registered in all areas having reductions in ambient air pollution could reasonably be expected to continue and, potentially, to increase with any further reduction, however small.
(Of course Bush and his various mini-me's in other government, including ours in Canada, are working on turning that around.)
I'm surprised this factor hasn't been so far mentioned, unless I missed some comment(s), which is possible as she who never sleeps never quite wakes up.
So I don't know if I'm talking through my hat or my eyelids.
Just watched Banzhaff on the M&J show today.
His whole television appearance in my opinion projected a deep hated and resentment of smokers, and seeming desire to punish the whole lot of them. I dismissed the thought, until several other people which had no clue who Banzhaff was, that also watched the segment that wanted to know what smokers ever did to this man.
I think Weyers also came off as a medaling busybody abusing his power over employees to dominate them.
I believe the woman who quit out of principle summed it up well saying he overstepped his bounds and wanted no part of working for him.
To me it seems that Banzhaff's little hate speech, professing as fact that smokers cost employers, should be evaluated for slander. While not individually named, but rather as a group as a whole, it should also be evaluated for malice, with the damages being lost and reduced lifetime wages, in the form of a class action litigation. Unfortunately his pockets are not deep enough to even begin to cover the potential lost wages from 45 million smoking workers.
I think Banzhaff is the star example of the mean spirited nature of tobacco control, and by their silence, tobacco control is a willing accomplices not so different from Banzhaff.
Researcher's tainted past leads Ottawa health facility to sever ties
Scientist manipulated, falsified data, U.S. investigators say
Margaret Munro Canwest News Service
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Kristin Roovers didn't mention her problems with U.S. authorities when she walked into the Ottawa Health Research Institute as a post-doctoral fellow in 2005 and landed a job exploring how cancer cells turn bad.
She walked out this week when her record of "extensive" data falsification and manipulation caught up with her.
Her misconduct is being held up as the latest example of a growing problem of data fakery and manipulation in the research world."......
http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...c22875aafb0&
p=2
Seems easy enough to make program to "play" with the initial data, and then use that to put out a study; to me. This proves that peer review doesn't really work, id say.
(Man, this 'puter's slooow...
And, as I said, already said better by others.
Can I be support evidence, huh? Huh?)
Hi, Dave K. -
if you'll pardon comments from the peanut gallery??? it's become a standard toxic industry PR tactic to obscure (except as regards their products/pollution) the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily prove cause, and it's the flood of PR which has made such tactics mainstream and so generally accepted as to be unquestioned by most.
If it wasn't easy to be misled by PR tactics, it wouldn't be so successful, and 'oh, what a wonderful world it would be'.
We (society in general) have been indoctrinated to accept the same arguments used to prove industry/anti points: meta-analysis, developed and promoted as a strategy by toxic industry (and industry scientists such as Doll) can only indicate correlation and is too easily (mis)used to mislead and to contest/forestall true scientific inquiry, as has been done for the past half-century or so.
In example, people who feel tired, stressed, uncomfortable, ill or are in pain tend to smoke more heavily in order to feel better - it's a response to a situation, not necessarily a cause of the problem.
The same increased smoking response applies to boredom - so far I haven't heard that blamed on smoking, although I'm sure it's coming now it's been mentioned.
If it were not for the smoking scapegoat, asbestos and numerous other lucrative killers would have long since been publicly identified at an accurate risk assessment and banned world-wide (rather than the smoking scapegoat) and our health, safety and environment greatly improved.
Perhaps the most spectacular example is that of the war-time (WW2) exposures predominately among men, not only to radiation in mining, processing and experimentation in the 'race to build The Bomb', and to various carcinogenic chemicals/emissions, but to massive asbestos use especially in shipyards, with millions world-wide and in multiple countries directly and heavily exposed, and others through second-hand exposures, i.e. fibres carried home on skin, hair, clothing and other possessions, environmental exposures, i.e. those living near or even passing by asbestos-using facilities, naval personnel on board (asbestos-loaded) ship, and other product/environmental exposures.
While it's often been said that very nearly as many died from shipyard asbestos exposures during WW2 as died in battle, these were merely the immediate, short-term results from exposures producing often progessive disablement (asbestosis) and death (most often one or more of the unholy, most common asbestos-related trinity of lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis) often decades after exposure, and this was only involving correctly diagnosed deaths where asbestos was officially recognised as the cause - whereas all asbestos-related diseases are commonly misdiagnosed, at least initially - even in autopsy.
If you're sure you know the answer, why look further?
Especially when it can lose you your reputation/job/career.
The war workers/shipyard men were warned about smoking, not asbestos; as has become standard, lung cancers and asbestosis/fibrosis (often misdiagnosed as 'smoking-related emphysema' in smokers) were and are commonly and automatically, without any attempt at verification, attributed to tobacco use where present rather than other exposures - including known exposures to proven complete carcinogens, where at best smoking will be labelled a 'co-factor', based on studies that said most or all of the disease appeared in smokers forming most or all of a high-risk employment (typically factory or mining) group.
These were 'supported' by numerous later population studies showing that those most likely to be in high-risk occupations, environments and socioeconomic conditions and who are therefore most likely to cling to their panacea, are most likely to have associated diseases then attributed to the panacea - smoking, or, now, rather the smoker, - instead of known causes, in reducing not only industry/governmental liability but the costs of necessary change which would otherwise be borne by toxic industry out of profits rather than society at large and most especially the typically poorest and most vulnerable continuing to suffer high and increasing disease rates as a result.
The unprecedented wave of asbestos-related diseases - most commonly involving lung cancer and asbestosis, with mesothelioma less likely to be misdiagnosed - following the war, and continuing for a latent period sometimes extending beyond 60 years, was and is continually assigned in the media to smoking, although the actual circumstance and cause(s) are documented and a matter of public record - and occurring also at high rates in the areas of such shipyards.
It was the asbestos/chemical industry who made a fine art of transferring liability to victim blame, an effort dating back at least to the 1930s, and, to make a long story short(er), the high rate of smoking among those in high-risk occupations was used to 'account' (80% to 100% smoked regularly, others on a more casual basis - most of the disease appearing in this larger group, which may, in studies of the time, encompass the whole cohort) for the high rate of lung cancer and disease among miners, factory workers and others heavily exposed, despite radon and asbestos both being complete carcinogens causing also (among other ills) lung damage, and never having required any assistance from any other substance in producing high rates of such disease, including cancers of the larynx, by the by.
With the amount of frantic PR work and disinformation produced by multiple intertwined industries (in example, Pfizer's been fighting asbestos-related lawsuits) all attempting to further reduce lawsuits by those injured/dying/surviving the dead of exposures to multiple profitable/cost-saving industrial measures, products and processes/pollution, it's hardly surprising that some sticks in our heads.
And that's why this sort of research/idea-sharing brainstorm thing works - we've all got a piece of the puzzle or an idea of where it fits or relates or a different take to be considered, a reminder of aspects possibly known but overlooked and unnaccounted for, or even just mutual support through a very hard slog.
And that's also how a lot of us maintain a sort of fondness/respect for Dr. Siegel, who has enough honour to provide a place where we can do this, despite our respectively entrenched positions, often barking at each other from the other side of a very tall and solid fence.
Still waiting for the current scan to finish crawling - boy, I do go on...
SuperCallousFragilisticEllenAllAtrocious
SHOWER CURTAINS:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
"'Shower curtains could mean curtains for you, says watchdog group.' ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan asks, Where are the media watchdog groups to hold them accountable for this nonsense?'"
And where are the media watchdog groups to hold accountable Tobacco Control on the subject of secondhand smoke, especially on outdoor patios and in well-ventilated bars? Nowhere! that's where the media watchdog groups are.
Maybe they should be renamed the media pussycat groups.
Now with all due respect, Ellen, can you characterize my position as “entrenched” when I ask only to see some solid proof? I don’t think so.
.
Rose--
Can't believe that you post your stuff here and then keep no record of it? That couldn't be. If so, it'd be something like building a skyscraper while perpetually losing each floor as you go higher.
However on the unlikely possibility that that's true, at least start now by copying every message you post before you post it. You know: highlight it. Hit command C. Then paste it into an email you send to yourself. Ultimately, you can copy all your emails into a document file and see what you;'ve got once it's all, serially, in one place.
You can also go back into the archives here, go through the threads, do a "search" for your name, and then copy what you find and e it to yourself.
Beyond that, you might find a home for your research in the Evidence files at forces or the Library at clash. Besides, who knows? You might have a crack at a publishable paper.
Nightlight--
I don't want to jump into the middle of your debate with Dave but let me ask an objective question by posing an alternative explanation for the findings (and for the sake of argument, I'll take your word that they're true) that smoking elevates circulating anti-oxidants and increases the production of other good stuff.
Couldn't that simply be homeostatic? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just asking the logical (chicken or egg) question. Just as an allergen causes the body to produce histamines to counteract it, and a virus stimulates the body to make antibodies, couldn't tobacco smoke, if in some way destabilizing, cause the body to produce more weapons to fight it? And then mightn't harm come at the point at which the counteractants are insufficient or their production can't keep up?
Don't land on me with a tire iron; I'm just asking.
As to "self-selection," in the way you define it, it seems to come out as meaning "misclassification," (which is actually much higher than the aunts ever admit). Various studies centered on just misclassification of smokers/ nonsmokers have shown it to be anywhere in from 7-40%, (that's %age of smokers lying). I'd wager that demonization would make it higher now than when the canon studies began back in the 1980s.
It's also possible too that, like any other drug-- or let's call it pharmaceutical-- nicotine can have beneficial effects in some areas and simultaneously negative side effects in others. And just as with pharmaceuticals, the occurence of bad side effects depends on a cause or causes unknown in individual biochemistry.
:
Thank you for those kind words Ellen, I never thought that being obsessional and strongly in touch with my inner megalomaniac could prove so useful.
Sorry to repost, but could we take a look at this again?
I am still stuck on that lung cancer being rare until 1920 thing.
The records of tobacco exports from America show that there was a massive trade between us, though we may have been selling on in the early days. However the reports of intensive smuggling for personal use under punitive taxes, must surely represent fairly common usage.
"The Golden Age of Smuggling 1700-1815 saw the culmination of an industry already seven centuries old and still with us today. “The Golden Age” was brought about by exhorbitant taxes on imports creating huge profit incentives"
Taxes were levied on an amazing range of items, hats, gloves, playing cards, windows... However the most important were the drugs of pleasure, alchohol, tobacco chocolate and tea.
http://www.iwbeacon.com/Smugglin...700---
1850.aspx
Apparently they plaited tobacco into the rigging of ships, hardly worth the effort if smoking wasn't popular.
Cancer used to be called scirrhus,http://www.pricklytree.webhostin...ools/ index.html
ON PERCUSSION OF THE CHEST 1824
- "inasmuch as it must be allowed to throw no small degree of light upon the obscurer diseases of the chest, of which a more perfect knowledge has hitherto been much wanted."
"Thus I have remarked that Tailors, Millers, &c. who are forced to inhale, during their labours, a fine dust, become phthisical; while shoemakers, weavers, &c. from the forced position or application of their weak chests, during their various occupations, become asthmatical, with scirrhous lungs, &c." http://biochimica.bio.uniroma1.i...it/ bauenbrf.htm
The Dublin Journal of Medicine
Schirrus of the Lung 1843
"Dr Stokes presented a specimen of cancer of the lung for which he observed that he was indebted to Mr Shannon, Surgeon of the South Union."
"The present specimen was one of great interest, there had on former occasions, been presented by the Society examples of encephaloid deposition, but no specimen of that organ affected by the schirrus has as yet been laid out before, nor had Dr Stokes himself ever met with such a case before the present.
http://books.google.co.uk/books? ...hl=en#PPA519,M1
The Medico-Chirurgical Review and Journal of Practical Medicine
"The preparation is in the hands of Mr Davis and we again repeat, that it shows a genuine schirrus of the lung.
http://books.google.co.uk/books? ...hl=en#PPA520,M1
..1898, when Rottmann suggested that a small cluster of cases of lung cancer in tobacco workers in Leipzig might point to an occupational hazard, possibly from tobacco dust. At that time, lung cancer was a rare disease;"
http://www.parliament.the-statio.../27/
9111806.htm
So before 1920 its a very rare disease associated with inhaling dust.
It would also seem that it might be an occupational hazard rather than a disease of old age or smoking.
Hi Ellen,
Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm afraid I can't find any record of an e-mail from you. If you can, resend it to author@velvetgloveironfist.com.
Walt
I'm afraid its absolutely true.
I thought of my research as more of a contribution to the ongoing debate.
My favourites list is immense though, however if the machine should break, its all gone.
I've just been unravelling knotted string to find out what was really going on.
BTW I know its too late this season, but do try growing the plant next year if you can, all the nonsense just falls apart when you grow the real thing.
A spectacular subject for the back of the herbaceous border, and much admired by visitors to my garden.
"Seems easy enough to make program to "play" with the initial data, and then use that to put out a study; to me. This proves that peer review doesn't really work, id say."
From l. duguay's link;
http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...c22875aafb0&
p=2
"The authors of today's report in Nature estimate there are 2,300 suspected cases of misconduct each year in medical labs receiving funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, with roughly 1,000 cases going unreported. While the survey focuses on the U.S., they say misconduct is not confined by the border.
"We don't have any reason to believe scientists are any different in Canada than the U.S., unfortunately, with regard to scientific misconduct," said James Wells, director of the office of research policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who co-authored the study with colleagues from ORI. It did not include engineering and natural sciences, which employ even more researchers, but he says those fields are just as prone to misconduct.
Only a handful of cases a year ever come to the attention of Canada's research agencies, which have been under pressure to be more proactive and transparent but which continue to protect the identity of scientists found to have engaged in serious misconduct. In some cases, recently reported by Canwest News Service, they continue to give them tax dollars."
What seems evident is when a "scientific" opinion is purchased without fear of reprisals, researchers can say pretty much anything they like in a TV commercial and still maintain absolute credibility among their peers.
"The News report" which would be paid for by Industries and charities who require those opinions to sell their products directly, can also be utilized for long term funding stabilization, by creating false perceptions and urban myth.
Do legitimate researchers normally run out to organize a press release every time they complete a statistical or momentary calculation? Or would a paid advertising campaign, be more likely to paid for, by a lobby or conflicted industry? The organizations with the most to gain directly or a group who is hired by the government to the tune of millions of dollars every year, would be much more likely to be responsible for that part of the "News" report.
"News" [Infomercials] can be choreographed to appear on all three National networks in the same short 1-5 minute newsreel time slot. That kind of coverage is only normally purchased by an advertiser who declares; money is no object. The kind of advertisers who run Super Bowl commercials. For a researcher or number cruncher, few are living in that snack bracket.
Government budgetary rules used to restrict them as non contenders for those kind of expenditures. "Social Marketing" as a government "mandate strategy" changed all the old rules. Now they can buy all the politics they like with the public purse and avoid any fear of prosecution.
Hi, Harry,
I'm guessing I didn't phrase that very well.
It never occurred to me that the term 'entrenched', which I'd always regarded as being neutral, had a negative connotation.
Having dragged out my trusty Websters, I can assure you that I used it in the sense of 'to establish securely: used in the passive voice or with a reflexive pronoun; as, the right to trial by jury is entrenched in our legal system.'
(Until Bush vetoed democracy on a world-wide basis, anyway. It's an old dictionary - the old ones have more words - and definitions - than the new ones, which are evidently downsizing to save on costs.)
I did NOT intend it in the sense, of which I was shamefully unaware, of 'to encroach; infringe; trespass; also called intrench.'
(Although that definition would actually apply to the other side, not ours.)
And I wasn't talking about fortifications, either, although they really are something we need...
I merely meant that none of us are budging from our positions on each side of the fence; although the other (TC) side is determined to drag us through the slats regardless of damage sustained, we ain't goin' easy, if at all.
I did want to express some appreciation to Dr. Siegel, who is rare among TC proponents in making any attempt to communicate with us artificially created pariahs for any reason at all.
If it weren't for this attempt on his part, we'd have to find another forum, and I do think this is the most interesting one I've yet found, with the best brains and nicest people, you being one of them.
I'm glad you asked rather than continuing to think that I'd somehow meant to insult you or anyone else here, and, come to that, myself as well.
Speaking as 'She-who-never-sleeps-enough-to-wake-up', I don't always phrase things very well, so please do let me know if at any time anything I say makes you wonder how it was meant; we all get hurt and offended enough on a daily basis that we don't, so to speak, need to think we're doing it to ourselves.
Ellen;
Your original post "when taken in proper context" was clear and concise as always. You have no reason to apologize or explain, aside from a request perhaps Harry could take another look, before bringing your or anyone's statements into question.
I only wish I had your talent in expressing a thought.
"I only wish I had your talent in expressing a thought"
So do I, I am afraid that 8 years of writing exclusively in abbreviations put a stop to all that.
Incidentally , the Virginia tobacco leaves are now 20" long and 12" wide and STILL refuse to kill anything ,butterflies now use it for sunbathing.
I am beginning to wonder if the plants I bought last year were N.Rustica.
If they were, that plant has a great future as a living insecticide growing in pots as a patio plant.
idlex
Thats a very kind idea, but I started plaguing this site in November after I had grown the plant, it would put you to a lot of trouble, though I will admit, I would be glad of a second mind to review it. All the pieces have to fit perfectly and I worry about any glaring errors I may have missed. - Rose
I was proposing a cooperative effort to document your postings rather than a solo effort on my part. And I wasn't thinking of reviewing their content. I simply think that you turn up unique bits of information - of a kind that nobody else would dream of pursuing. And so the result is that this information is only going to be found here.
I spent a couple of hours going through this month's postings of yours - 20 days -, copying them into a text file. If they go back to November 2007, I estimate that it would take about 20 hours to do the whole lot. That's quite a long time. And not time I can spare right now. Which is why I was suggesting a cooperative effort of some sort.
If nobody else is interested in a cooperative effort, I'll probably just do a bit on it now and then. I'd personally like to have the nicotinic acid posts. And I know there are earlier posts which interested me a lot.
Ellen, you're quite right about the 'blame the victim' (junk)-"scientific" techique of shifting the blame from the industrial toxins & carcinogens to the lifestyles of the victims of these exposures. The nazi antismoking "science" of 1930s & 40s was recycled by the UK & US governments in order to shift the blame on the victims' lifestyles for the sudden explosive rise in lung cancers (melanomas also skyrocketted at that time, that was blamid on enjoying sun tanning) coinciding in time & space with the radioactive fallouts from the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
"Sir" Richard Doll was the pioneer (ignoring his precusrors in nazi's antismoking "science") and the leading practicioner of 'blame the victim via junk science' (for few bucks from the industry/gov). Here is a usenet thread on Doll's pseudo-scientific scams, which is all that he did for living, with some references.
idlex, I'd be willing to help copy all the posts on nicotinic acid - they are fascinating.
I'll see if Forces will set up a special area so they can be loaded in there - keeping it a locked thread while they are added.
Are you at Forces?
idlex
Nicotinic acid
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65497-
5498.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65489-
5491.html
http://www.healthservices.gov.bc...07/
00000711.pdf
Only if you really want to, personally I can't think of anything worse.
Nightlight,
(a) Smoking causes LC
(b) Smoking is protective against carcinogens which themselves cause LC (hence those more exposed to them would smoke more often since smoking alleviates toxicity of such exposures)
(c) Smoking and LC have overlapped causes in some combination of genetic & environmental factors (e.g. some such dual effect genes were found recently; environmental: e.g. chronic stress, socio-economic hardships...).
I think time trend studies tend to rule out (b),,,,they don't completely, but if it is true smoking protective effects exist, time trend studies show that the carcinogenic impacts of first hand smoking are stronger than the protective effects, in regards to lung cancer. this does NOT mean some do not exist, just that they are not strong enough to override the hazard effects....and to manifest themselves as a benefit overall to public health.
Numerous studies show that smoking in combination with radon, asbestos, and urban pollution, exposure, for example are more than additive....actually show a multiplier effect. Lewis found smokers born in england and later moved to south africa had about twice the lung cancer rate as smokers born in south africa, for example. Eliminating any of these lung cancer risks should, in the long haul show up as declining lung cancer prevalence in populations. In fact , those involved in public health are trying to clean up urban air, reduce asbestos exposure, and lower radon exposure as much as possible.....fine. nothing is wrong with a multifaceted approach to our lung cancer problem.
that said , (c) is the most likely postulate to be true. although (a) may also operate. we can't be sure. But the bottom line is if a or c are true, then over time we would expect lung cancer rates to change in response to smoking rate changes..in some predictable fashion, and we see, time and time again that this actually happens.
yes, these are scientific questions which are not proven to the highest scientific standard, but next, we ask " what should public health officials do with the incomplete knowlege that one of these 2 possibilities is probably true?"
1. they can ignore this information and wait until someday someone proves to a much higher standard that smoking causes lung cancer... i don't think they should.
2. they should make sure the public, especially smokers are aware of this info, so they can make informed decisions to continue, or not continue to smoke... this is what I think they should do.
3. they can ram their concerns down our throats... they can try to enslave us to quit, they can battle us, instead of smoking ...this is what they are doing. first they told us smoking causes lung cancer, and many of us voluntairly quit (fine, no problem). Not satisfied with that, they then began making up pure lies to try to force more of us to quit. this is when they crossed the line. This is why I fight for smokers rights.
I had, since the early 1990s, written letters to the editor, yada yada, but before deciding to go beyond that, I decided to take a look at the value of this war on smoking, to see if modern public health policy on smoker enslavement was justified. apart from the fact such actions are never justified in a free society, I wanted to see if the "tough love- it's for your own good" antics of the war on tobacco were of enough value, to perhaps not fight too hard. My time trend findings strongly suggest that there is no justification for this blitz on personal freedom....even among those who might have different political views than mine about just how far govt should go to fight lung cancer.
So, in the absence of perfect science, one must operate with whichever hypothesis seems most likely, in the real world. As a retired scientist, I see this as a shades of grey issue, not as a black and white issue. I have my feelings about this issue, and act accordingly. Encouraging smokers to quit is fine, ruining bar, restaruant and the airline business, is not. Making smokers social parriahs and scaring nonsmokers is not. causing smokers to lose freinds, employment, custody of their children, increasing drunk driving deaths..is not.
Nightlight
He was certainly very busy,government fixer? Industry fixer, 5th columnist, who knows.
The Spanish Oil Scandal
"Twenty years ago, the Spanish "cooking oil" disaster began as a mystery illness. Years later, the toll was put at more than 1,000 deaths and more than 25,000 seriously injured, many of whom were permanently disabled. It was the most devastating food poisoning in modern European history"
http://education.guardian.co.uk/
...,542111,00.html
I like this one
http://hell.unsaccodicanapa.com/
...al_cancers.html
Walt: ... an alternative explanation for the findings (and for the sake of argument, I'll take your word that they're true) that smoking elevates circulating anti-oxidants and increases the production of other good stuff.
Please, don't take my word for it. Go to the page "Smoking is good for you" which has a collection of links & references from that "smart drugs" thread and other discussions I had with Stephanie Stahl who created that page.
Couldn't that simply be homeostatic? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just asking the logical (chicken or egg) question. Just as an allergen causes the body to produce histamines to counteract it, and a virus stimulates the body to make antibodies, couldn't tobacco smoke, if in some way destabilizing, cause the body to produce more weapons to fight it?
Very good observation, it is indeed a form of hormesis. In fact that was brought up by someone & discussed in that "smart drugs" thread, ( http://www.imminst.org/forum/ind...ndpost&
p=166375 ). Of, course that's how it works, along with anything else we use as medication, at some level of description. Even our most basic stuff of life, the oxygen we breathe and water we drink, at right dose or in the wrong place will harm our health, even kill us.
Our cells are fantastically complex biochemical networks, which are self-programming natural distributed computers. Mathematically, such networks with adaptable links, exposed to punishments/rewards function the same way our brains do - they learn, anticipate, model internally their environment (including themselves, the 'ego actor') and run these models 'in their head' as it were, forward in time in order to select their actions that optimize future punishments/rewards. This look-ahead is like a chess player playing possible move sequences in his head to decide on the best move to make. Human body is a hierarchical super-network of such cellular networks, with unimaginable complexity and computing power.
From that perspective, any time you are exposed to any substance or physical/chemical interaction with your environment, that interaction forms, among its other roles (such as punishments/rewards), a 'perception' material for these biochemical networks. They not only process the input and use/discard the substance, but they learn from it and adapt their future properties & behaviors based on their anticipation of the future environment.
For example, when you lift weights, you are depleting energy and oxygen, and producing toxic waste materials in your muscle cells. They need to clean up the waste, then replenish the used up energy & oxygen reserves. But they go one better and anticipate that they will be in this situation again in the future, so they build up reserves which exceed the original ones in order to cover the worst case anticipated depletions and preempt possible overload & damage. As result, your muscle cells become stronger and increase their capacity for future exertions & toxic waste cleanups. Hence, the benefits of exercise.
The hormesis is thus a mere labeling convention since the above 'exercise effect' is active in any of our interactions with environment. Anything can be overdosed to become harmful and everything has the "optimum" level, although since no one truly knows what is ahead, there is no one truly "optimal" readiness (too much of it costs, wastes resources) or optimal level of eposure yielding such optimal readiness. For example, how much smallpox vaccine is optimal for you? Well, that depends on how much future exposure to smallpox you will have. If your future is such that you won't ever be exposed to smallpox, than the vaccine is a pure cost to the network (side-effects) with no return.
Since these intelligent networks are the same kind of distributed self-programming computers as human brain, the above dilemma is of the same nature as that of a parent wondering what kinds of things are best to teach their kids. Should you teach your kid to program in FORTRAN or COBOL? Probably not, since it is unlikely they will ever use it. But who knows? Or fix today's cars? Or vacuum tube radios? ...
Unlike many substances we use for food, drinks or medicine, tobacco smoke is quite unique. The quantity of tobacco matter taken in by your body is quite small (200-300mg per pack) compared to foods & beverages which we ingest in quantities thousands times greater every day. Also, unlike nearly anything else we ingest daily, the punishment/reward feedback loop with our biochemical networks for tobacco smoking is thousands times faster, since the matter ingested goes directly into arterial blood and the local evaluations 'good/bad stuff' start within tens of milliseconds. These internal evaluations & feedbacks go on back & forth within each puff. With foods & beverages, you can use taste & smell for an instant preliminary evaluations, but these computations don't really evaluate the actual impact, which will occur many minutes or hours later.
Therefore, the tobacco smoking triggered computations in our biochemical networks is running at much faster CPU clock speeds, so to speak, than those from nearly anything else we ingest. As result, the thousands of years of such thousand times faster evaluations, by couple billions of lifelong "test subjects" has honed (through cultuvations, tobacco curing, ways of smoking...) the benefits of these networks beyond any other medicinal substance humans have ever known.
To realize how potent its medicinal magic is, you can examine the results of decades of smoking experiments mentioned earlier. Despite all the money, technology and the brains the big pharma has unleashed against this medicinal miracle plant, which is its worst nightmare -- a practically perfect, nearly universal, natural, inexpensive medicine -- they are still, as of 2005 desperately struggling to figure out some way to make it appear to be doing at least some harm, and it still won't do it. The damn smoking animals keep outliving the nonsmoking ones. And they keep staying thinner, happier, more youthful and smarter, too. What can the poor pharma execs and their bought "scientists" do, but lie.
I think Banzhaff is the star example of the mean spirited nature of tobacco control, and by their silence, tobacco control is a willing accomplices not so different from Banzhaff.
Walt H. | 06.19.08 - 11:46 pm | #
Very well said, Walt H., very well said indeed.
Due to weather related issues I was unable to look for, let alone catch the program, so I appreciate your comments upon it.
idlex, I'd be willing to help copy all the posts on nicotinic acid - they are fascinating. I'll see if Forces will set up a special area so they can be loaded in there - keeping it a locked thread while they are added. Are you at Forces?
No, I'm not at Forces. But I'm on Freedom2choose forum.
What I've got at the moment is a text file of most of Rose's posts for June, with all her links copied into it. I think the nicotinic acid ones were a month or two ago.
"Up to 40%" -- you know, I've seen(and heard) ads for big clearance sales that tout "up to 80% savings."
However, the average savings when you get to the store are much greater than 2-6%. (Compared to the average--and MAXIMUM--reduction of 1-3% seen from this study.)
There you go. Tobacco control. Worse than commercials.
Rose,
You should be able to buy a 1GB flash drive for about $10(5 pounds I'm guessing) which will let you store your favorites list and any particular HTML pages you wanted. I know other people do similar things, with an external drive, or whatever.
I think this would be a really handy backup, and it is cheap and effective. You could even buy a couple if you want--keep 1 in a very very safe place in case something bad happens.
This goes for anyone, and I realize it's off topic, but I think it's a great investment. It's given me a lot less to worry about.
It is so heart warming to read all the responses to Rose's hard work and what she willingly post here so to educate even those who feels they are educated. Rose has brought us all a new insight and I also enjoy reading and trying to understand some of what she has discovered. Though modest, she contributes so many intelligent studies, most of what she has undertaken herself. I do hope you follow some of the suggestions so to save your findings and someday have them published. You deserve so many kudos.
Now, it wouldn't hurt for the Doctor or Bill to admit that you have given them some food for thought.
My thanks too to Walt H. for a report on the Fox news show starring our favorite Banzhaff. We were also under heavy storms during that time period and my satellite tends to go out whenever a cloud passes over!
I think some of you will be pleased to read this. This is a step in the right direction of better determining the risk profile of SHS and cigarette smoking.
http://tinyurl.com/4ux96r
Dave: I think time trend studies tend to rule out (b),,,,they don't completely, but if it is true smoking protective effects exist, time trend studies show that the carcinogenic impacts of first hand smoking are stronger than the protective effects, in regards to lung cancer.
The secular trends are by far the weakest and the lowest resolution tool, among already low-res statistical methods on self-selected subjects, for reconstructing the complex graphs of causes and effects leading to diseases. They lump up far too many factors, quantified in extremely coarse grained, fuzzy paramatrizations or largely ingored altogether, to get close to even pretending to resolve between the models (a), (b) or (c). There are so many other secular trends going up or down at every scale, intertwined in myriad ways, that to pin anything on anything is a pure act of faith. It's fine if one looks at it as a heuristic, providing coarse grained hints for subsequent use of more precise epidemiological tools, which in turn will provide hints for hard science to actually resolve the complex cause-effect graphs.
Regarding smoking & LC, how do you account for and adjust for the effect of nuclear fallouts, which also rose rapidly with atmospheric nuclear tests in early 1950s, coinciding in time and often in space, with rapid rise in lung cancers and melanomas (lungs & skin are the frontline interface of our bodies to the external air). Or simultaneous rise in EMF pollution, especially in high frequency ranges (whose quanta energies increasingly overlap in spectrum with the sectra of cellular biochemical processes)? Or trends in traffic pollution, fuel & engines trends,...? Or about myriad of other environmental, nutritional, medical, social,... trends, be it known, unknown, unquantified or unquantifiable, unfolding all in parallel on the same populations? It just can't be done through such coarse grained methods. At most you can honestly get out of it is a hunch about a rough domain where to look for a better hint (e.g. using case control epidemiological studies), before focusing the finer tools of hard science to actually resolve between the alternative models (a), (b) or (c).
The gross secular trends don't even qualify as a hint for a composite conjecture '(a) OR (b) OR (c)' since they can't establish firmly that smoking is even in the shared causes-effects graph with lung cancer at all (which regular case control study can), let alone where in that graph smoking belongs.
The "self-medication" model (b) remains perfectly consistent with the secular LC trends, even if they were to fit perfectly, since if the actual main cause of LC is any of the myriad other exposure factors and smoking alleviates some effects of those exposures (backed up by numerous well established protective effects of TS), then both smoking and LC rates will still share the temporal trends with the actual causes of LC. You simply cannot eliminate or adjust for the factors which you largely don't know or which you cannot know even if you wanted or which you know at extremly coarse grained level. In order to claim elimination of (b) using secular trends method, you would need to know all conceivable exposure trends, and show that no individual trend pattern or any of their combinatorially possible superpositions (which is exponential number in the number of trends NT, and NT is astronomical number already), matches better the LC trend than smoking trend. Hence, to put it mildly, the 'elimination of (b) by secular trends' claim is a bit far fetched.
yes, these are scientific questions which are not proven to the highest scientific standard, but next, we ask " what should public health officials do with the incomplete knowlege that one of these 2 possibilities is probably true?"
As long as you insist on limiting your methodology to the low resolution statistical methods on self-selected subjects, little if anything can be concluded about the alternatives (a), (b) or (c).
But we do have quite a bit of hard science about tobacco smoke, the real experiments, too. As you can see from the 2004-2005 Pfizer sponsored experiments on rats & mice, even at this late date, the reasearch extremely motivated to demonstrate any harm at all from tobacco smoke, has managed to hit the snags that "plagued" the hard science of tobacco smoking for decades -- no matter how bad and how contrived the smoking setup, the smoking animals still end up better off than the non-smoking animals. That is a "trend" far closer and far more pertinent to the matter of interest here. No amount of handwaving can get around the pesky little fact that smoking animals live longer.
Causing cancers in all kinds of lab animals using variety of substances or radiation is a fairly routine matter, that even undergrads can do for their lab assignements. It's certainly no 'rocket science'. If commonly encountered substance or a physical or a biological agent is suspected of causing cancers at the common exposure levels, the experiments are done and we know it within 2-5 years with certainty.
Only with tobacco smoke, six decades later, after the thosands of experiments (that are quietly being ignored by the "experts", mass media, pedagogues, politicians & bureaucrats), we are still handwaving stories about the global trends, RRs divined on self-selected samples,... while at the same time many billions are being transferred from the pockets of smokers into the pockets of those peddling these theories and whipping up the antismoking hysteria.
Yet, you and Dr. Siegel keep arguing here as if we have just within last couple years found out an early hint, the statistics on self-selected subject, indicative of possible causal role of smoking in LC, and now we are waiting for hard science (experiments) to nail it. That's not where we are, though. That hint came, not five years ago, but about sixty years ago (ignoring the nazi precusors from 1930s) and we had plenty of hard science in this area since. Already in 1958 Fisher pointed out that enough time has passed since the 1950 observation by Doll & Hill, and it's already passed the time to see some real science back it up or drop the conjecture (a) altogether.
The reason we're still handwaving at the decades old hints, is not because we are waiting for the experiments from hard science, but because the experiments came out the "wrong" way -- the smoking animals not only don't get killed or even harmed by smoking at all, but instead they live longer, stay thinner and perform better on cognitive tasks.
Hence, the advocates of the model (a), which via fear mongering just happens to earn them a nice chunk of change, are stuck with the soft science of statistical correlations on self-selected samples, where amid the fundamental ambiguity of these low resolution scientific methods, their massive PR can bamboozle the ignorants.
Anon, I read that article (breast cancer/SHS)this morning. I wonder if the media will report this with the same enthusiasm as they did the initial report (that SHS causes breast cancer). Every network picked up the first story...it seems there should be a follow-up story, in view of this more recent and more comprehensive study.
Ellen,
Anonymous is exactly right, and I owe you an apology. So here it is: an apology. You do express yourself wonderfully well and I should have taken more care before knee-jerking a response.
.
David: Encouraging smokers to quit is fine,...
Well, we differ a bit here. I encourage non-smokers to start smoking and in the last couple years about half a dozen, men and women, ages from mid 20s to 60s, after studying the materials I suggested (and taking into account anything else they found on internet), have started smoking and are quite grateful for the benefits they observed with variety of chronic medical problems. Here is one example from my experience last year:
I have a neighbor, a guy in his early fifties with wife and couple kids, mechanical engineer and a corporate manager, fitness nut (yoga, jogging, bycicling, gardening,...). Last summer there was a block party and I lit up (together with some little old grandma, the only other smoker there; this is Lexington MA, an ultra-PC town). He came to me, expressing surprise that a scientifically educated person would ever smoke.
In response, I unloaded at him with the kind of stuff I wrote in my posts here, then hopped over to my house and brought him few books, and later that evening emailed him several links (including the mentioned "smart drugs" forum thread). The little old grandma, my smoking buddy, was quite amazed throughout my 'lecture' to the busy body, just listening, peacefully puffing away, smiling and nodding every now and then, as if remembering some long forgotten wisdom from her childhood.
Few days went by and here he comes across the street to my house, to ask what cigarettes I smoke. I instructed him and showed him how to roll his own from pure, additive free leaf (American Spirit), gave him web site links where to order.
Then about two weeks later, while I was taking my dog for a pee walk, he rans out of his house, catches up with Rambo and me, all smiles. He had started smoking and he never felt better. Few years ago he started getting nasty headaches nearly every afternoon and doctors couldn't help him. They were gone now. His mood and sex life perked up as well (he didn't dare tell his wife, though, she is another health nut and much less open minded, and so he still smokes secretly, only few a day). His weekend bycicling route around the town, which used to take him an hour before, was now taking 50 minutes.... I couldn't stop him and go my way, that's how thrilled he was about his secret fountain of youth.
Julie,
I hope so too. Before I entered into public health, I was always skeptical about media and health communications because it quite frequently seemed like a pandemic was being made out of something with only the potential of becoming a pandemic (the whole "public scare" joke if you will). So working in this field has presented challenges for me because while I agree that people should be educated with the most objective data possible, I have run into some walls because I am a huge proponent of autonomy and individual rights. Being the optimist that I am, I think that ultimately the data will tell the story about the true harms of SHS and tobacco smoke. I think this movement is a lot like the HIV/AIDS movement in the 80s that was filled with ignorant scare tactics and shoddy science. But as studies like these and similar ones continue to be published, those individuals in tobacco control who resort to fallacious tactics and marginalize smokers will ultimately have to be held accountable and pay their dues for the damage they caused. I, for one, firmly believe that establishing rapport with smokers should be the foundation of civilly coming to a middle ground, and reducing the burdens associated with smoking for those who are interested or motivated. For those who choose not to change their behaviors, that is their right to continue consumption of a legal product. And in that instance, I would say that the line should be drawn at providing information without judgment. Whether the information is used is up to the person/people.
Rose, thanks for the Doll articles. I didn't see these two before.
nightlight
I accidentally inhaled cement powder last year whilst building a wall, and suddenly remembered Dr Doll and the asbestos scandal.
Cancer expert implicated in Turner and Newell asbestos exposure case
"The relationship, revealed in documents that have just come to light, show that the Oxford College Doll founded received GBP 50,000 from Turner and Newell. The documents are also said to prove that the relationship between the company and Doll spanned thirty years.
In the wake of a damning documentary that revealed the lethal nature of asbestos, Turner and Newell invited Doll to address staff at various asbestos factories and to reassure them that their risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease was very low"
http://www.thameslabs.co.uk/guid.../news/
1159.html
British Scientist's Payoff for Work on Agent Orange Is Black Mark on Reputation
http://chronicle.com/news/articl...k-on-
reputation
Burying the evidence
How the UK is prolonging the
occupational cancer epidemic
"Basing official policies on Doll/Peto estimates has resulted in a chronic failure to secure either the resources or the priority required for meaningful preventive action."
http://www.hazards.org/cancer/hs...er/
hsecriticism
Commentary: Lung cancer and tobacco consumption
Sir Richard Doll
"we did refer to Müller's paper that had been published in 1939".
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...nt/full/30/1/
30
Review of Mullers study 1939
"The fact that about one third of the subjects surveyed smoked moderately or not at all indicates the presence of other cancerigenic factors besides smoking, such as influenza and industrial working conditions. The great significance of the latter can be inferred from various indications but needs further study. Members of families disposed to cancer and persons with chronic catarrhs of the respiratory tracts should be dissuaded from smoking."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness.../ness/
4164.html
Medical research and big business: The case of Sir Richard Doll
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../doll-
j09.shtml
Full text of letters in defence of Sir Richard Doll
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle1088798.ece
No, I'm not at Forces. But I'm on Freedom2choose forum.
idlex | 06.20.08 - 10:54 am | #
I'm at F2C too, but their forum is locked to members only. This research IMHO should be mainstream access. Rose's work here is scattered in the threads, to put them in one place would be fantastic!
idlex, please sign up for Forces to access posting there. The Forces site is open to the public with some secure areas. It would be great to load the links onto its own category under a locked section and then open it up when complete.
Rose, please join forces too. This will be a great section. Your work is outstanding.
nightlight, perhaps you've touched on this already and I missed it, but I'm wondering if you think ETS COULD HAVE a protective effect on non-smokers. There's the case of children and the 1998 WHO study, of course, to ponder, at least.
Dr. Siegel, isn't it time you checked in and gave us a comment on nightlight's posts?
.
Well, nightlight,
since the control group, (nonsmokers) were also exposed to radioactive fallout, and all the other known lung cacrinogens, we do have a control group, to compare with smokers exposed to all these other causes, and we still find 7-20 times more LC in the smoking group.
also, dose-response rels,... heavier smokers get LC more often than light smokers, also, smokers who quit get less LC than those who continue, and the longer since quitting, the less likely LC is to occur.
I'm not limiting my methodology, it's just that others have already established the above, so I took another look at time trends.
yes, time trend studies are among the weakest studies insofar as pure science is concerned, but the best, to answer public policy questions. and, they represent the impact on a much larger population, which cannot suffer from selection bias because the population is the same population that we hope the science can improve the health of, if applied.
First, let's ask the question "why would public health officials launch a war on smoking?" the only legitimate answer (and I'm not saying this is the only answer.. I think more recently since they have failed in so many other ways, they just want to blame smokers or passive smoke for everything to protect their own asses. ) is to cause LC rates to drop over time.
Aside from giving us some scientific evidence, time trends also give us public policy evidence. We can circumvent all the side issues, some of which you point out, and all of which are poorly understood to become applied science, and get a quick and dirty answer.
Do you believe if all smokers quit forever today, and abstain successfully that 30 years from now LC would not be less prevalent than it would be if we all continue to smoke?
By the way, I have examined time trends on heart attacks in various states with smoking bans, and find no improvement relative to states w/o bans. So those time trend studies actually show, (as opposed to active smoking time trends) that eliminating shs is NOT sound public ehalth policy.
Gilster
Thank you for the offer of help, in fact thank you everyone for your kind remarks.
I'm afraid its the internet equivalent of idle hands ...
Doctorthink (regarding a son who had to take a physical in order to engage in school sports). No wonder people have grown to distrust them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/1...rss&
oref=slogin
“Why did she have to bring in her son when she knew he was healthy? I was taking her money for doing this?”
And the doctor’s rationale? Why, “an annual checkup could help him learn to take charge of his own health as he grew up, and it would give me a chance to encourage healthy choices and to get a good sense of his emotional health during these challenging years (sic).” And then, but only as a clincher, that he was due for a tetanus booster.
Now you have to shell out your hard-earned cash to support a doctor practicing nannyism? I’ll admit I’m naive, but is the whole damn world now corrupt?
.
idlex, please sign up for Forces to access posting there. The Forces site is open to the public with some secure areas. It would be great to load the links onto its own category under a locked section and then open it up when complete. - Gilster
I've applied to Forces Tavern, if that's what you meant. Are you thinking of creating a Rose thread, and putting Rose's stuff in there as separate postings? That's (maybe) quite a good idea, in that it would be easy in principle for Rose to herself access it and change it. No need for HTML or anything fancy.
idlex
If I touch anything its likely to explode.
Dave K,
I was wondering, your time line studies (on heart attacks) are better than others because they start and end over a greater period of time using smoking bans as a reference point. How much longer and broader would observational studies into LC in humans have to be? Given that it does not take that long to have a heart attack but it takes decades to get LC. Can one not make the case that the issues that nightlife alludes on their own time lines are similar to the ones that you dismiss
in heart attack studies carried out by TC? Are you not in some way adding a some weight to nightlifes point by making this comparison?
Please excuse the intrusion, itchy fingers.
Fredrik
or nightlight even?
I'm wondering if you think ETS COULD HAVE a protective effect on non-smokers. - Harry
http://www.vialls.com/transposit...ns/
smoking.html
Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.” This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.
Anyone seen anything by Sterling about this?
Dave: since the control group, (nonsmokers) were also exposed to radioactive fallout, and all the other known lung cacrinogens, we do have a control group, to compare with smokers exposed to all these other causes, and we still find 7-20 times more LC in the smoking group.
also, dose-response rels,... heavier smokers get LC more often than light smokers, also, smokers who quit get less LC than those who continue, and the longer since quitting, the less likely LC is to occur.
The statistical correlations are much weaker, once we include nations with much weaker antismoking industry or times when it was weaker here (e.g. I've seen LC smoking RRs as low as 2 or less in some countries). There are also hundreds of strange anomalies (pdf) in the statistics, inconsistent with model (a).
The antismoking propaganda amplifies diagnostic biases, cause of death determinations, recollection biases, fuzzy as they all are to begin with. The same fear mongering, along with social and economic pressures, scares many away from smoking, distorting thus further the statistical properties of smokers vs ex-smokers vs never-smokers. Namely, those who continue smoking in the face of the steep social & economic penalties, are increasingly those who truly need it as a form of self-medication. Hence under the present circumstances, smoking is increasingly becoming ever stronger marker of some kind of hardship, making such correlations of smoking and various diseases ever less relevant as the hints of possible causes.
Now, ignoring all that just for the sake of the present argument, radiation exposure is a stress on the immune system, whether consciously percieved or not. Tobacco smoke upregulates numerous anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant & detox biochemical mechanisms and would certainly alleviate even the gentle, sub-threshold sense of unease or stress. The people who are the most sensitive and most damaged by such exposure, due to genetic or any lifetime experiences imprinted onto their biochemical networks, would have the strongest instinctive urge to smoke since they would experience the greatest benefit from it, which would then give rise to some additional correlations of smoking with LC (if there is much left to attribute after all the biases, confounders & anomalies, many of them unknown or unquantifiable, are accounted for).
First, let's ask the question "why would public health officials launch a war on smoking?"
Why did they launch a war on butter in favor of magarine, for decades, with no real basis and even contrary to facts (reversed 180 degrees only recently)? Because someone was raking in big bucks on industrial waste fats, selling them as health food, while maligning the much healthier and tastier natural alternative, the real butter, humans have enjoyed for thousands of years.
Why did the 'health' officials and doctors join in? Because the top guys in the 'health' industry and bureaucracies are bought off crooks and the lower down guys are well selected to be those who will obediently dance to the tune of the guys above. Those who just can't pinch their noses any more and swallow the nonsense and lies they are asked to mindlessly parrot get out and do something else. Doctors are not scientists and tend to parrot uncritically whatever they think they're officially supposed to parrot (med schools methods are biased to select for such personality traits, just as military training is biased to select for other personality traits).
Do you believe if all smokers quit forever today, and abstain successfully that 30 years from now LC would not be less prevalent than it would be if we all continue to smoke?
The trends seem to be pointing in opposite direction. Today fewer cigarettes are smoked in USA every year than in 1950, and the stuff we smoke has 2-3 times less "tar" than back then, yet we have at least 8 times more new lung cancers every year than they had.
Again for the sake of argument, let's say they do go down. Imagine now a "theory" that sunglasses cause sunburns. After all, sunglasses users will have on average more sunburns than never-users, while the former-users will fall somewhere in between. Correlation just like with smokers and lung cancer in the model (b). Sunglasses in fact protect against sun exposure, but only partially, hence they are a proxy for the sun exposure, thus they correlate with sunburns.
Let's say, as result of the "discovery" of dangers of sunglasses, the hysteria is whipped up resulting in as great social & economic pressures against sunglasses as there are against smoking. The people will start wearing sunglasses less. They will also tend to avoid sun, if they possibly can since that previously pleasant exprience became unpleasant. Hence the incidence of sunburns will decrease. There it is, another proof that sunglasses cause sunburns - we ban sunglasses, and the sunburns go down.
Similar "paradoxical" effect could happen with smoking within self-medication model (b) e.g. the upregulation of glutathione, catalase, SOD, neutrophiles and testosterone, might have helped many smokers handle and cope with the tasks that tough, macho guys would do. Without that boost in defenses and toughness, anyone mildly sensitive or not as tough naturally would start avoiding such jobs. The few left would be those naturally tough, their reward would increase since there would be fewer workers available, and any ill effects of the exposure would statistically drop by virtue of fewer people, and only the toughest ones, being exposed to the underlying carcinogen associated with the job.
In other words, from our cells up, our bodies are complex, intelligent biochemical networks, constantly "perceiving" through any interaction with their environment, computing and adapting at all levels, intertwined into the wider social networks, with myriads of self-reinforcing loops with their chicken & egg scenarios.
Simple minded observations of correlation in such intertwined intelligent networks and attribution of "blame" to some hand picked arbitrary node or activation pattern which happens to be a part of some complex web of feedback loops is extremely naive. Trying to "fix" the problems by suppressing the "fault" discovered in such manner is even worse since it invariably causes more harm than good.
It would be like kid a who knows a bit about few computer games he plays, so he is now official computer expert at his home to his mom and his sisters, trying to fix the computer which has started crashing lately, by banging a hammer or putting ice cubes on the chips the "expert" feels are warmer now than they were when it all worked ok. Even if his "expertly" temperature observations were perfectly correct, the complexity under the chip covers and the software running on them is so far beyond his understanding and his cure is so absurdly irrelevant to some bug that caused OS crashes, that his mom would be best off to stop the "expert" right away, before he does some real and expensive damage.
_First, let's ask the question "why would public health officials launch a war on smoking?" the only legitimate answer... is to cause LC rates to drop over time._ - Dave K
But have they dropped?
http://www.forces.org/Forces_Art...ewer.php?
id=586
“Smoking causes lung cancer,” they proclaimed. That was in 1950.
That year, 21,000 Americans died of lung cancer. Half the population smoked. Nobody cared about lung cancer...
The number of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases for 2008 is expected to be a whopping 215,020. Given that the survival rate of lung cancer in 1950 was about 5-7 %, it is clear that lung cancer cases have risen by 1000 % since 1950, despite a fairly constant level of cigarette consumption.
I don't see the downward trend in LC.
I am still stuck on that lung cancer being rare until 1920 thing. - Rose
So am I. It wasn't as if people only started smoking around 1900. Cigarette consumption rose after WWI, but it seems that people were stopping smoking pipes and cigars and taking up cigarettes.
http://tinyurl.com/42f6xh
It was precisely in the period after the first world war that the consumption per capita of tobacco products other than cigarettes began to decline for the first time since the turn of the nineteenth century: by contrast the consumption of cigarettes continued to increase, and by 1923, in these terms, cigarettes had become the single most popular form of tobacco consumption in the United States. In the 1920s alone, cigarette consumption per adult more than doubled from 610 in 1920 to 1,370 in 1930; or, to put it another way, from less than two to just under four per person per day. . . . in per capita terms consumption of all tobacco products was virtually the same in 1940 as it had been in 1920. Men were abandoning the old tobacco comforts - pipe, cigar, and chaw - and confirming themselves as cigarette consumers...
So what was tobacco consumption like in earlier times?
http://tinyurl.com/4xnvsm
Tobacco, for example, was as British as sweet tea by the mid-eighteenth century. Sold in taverns, coffee houses and apothecaries, it was also readily available from a proliferating number of specialist shops, markets, and pedlars. When people could not afford their own pipes, they could smoke from the communal pipe passed around in the drinking place... The 65,000 pounds of Virginian tobacco exported to Britain in the 1620s had risen to 220 million pounds fifty years later... As the habit spread across the social divide, tobacco lost its initial social cachet. By the late eighteenth century, tobacco consumption had also become progressively more masculine, aided in large measure by the influence of the military (notably the navy)...
British population 1700 = 5 million.
1700 tobacco consumption per head = 220/5 = 44 lbs = 704 oz. Assuming that the figure is per annum, that works out at nearly 2 oz per person per day in 1700. That's 4 times what I smoke! Even if three-quarters of the tobacco imported was re-exported, it's still the same as what I smoke.
Idlex,
is it not the case that what ever is killing more nonsmokers since 1950 is still killing more smokers and that if the number of cigarettes gone up we would be looking at more than 1000% LC increase? For example if there are more Alpha emitting radionuclides in the lungs of non-smokers then the same number of cigarettes will kill more smokers?
Notice that Rebecca Camber is not prepared to take public comments on shs/heart attacks but phone masts...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt...-levels-
UK.html
I can't say I blame her.
Harry: "but I'm wondering if you think ETS COULD HAVE a protective effect on non-smokers. There's the case of children and the 1998 WHO study, of course, to ponder, at least."
Well, asthma and allergies especially in children, religiously shielded nowdays from ETS, have been sky-rocketting in parallel with the reduction in their ETS exposure. In Eastern European countries, where ETS hysteria didn't catch on quite yet, thus parents smoke at home as they wish, the rates of childhood asthma & allergies are still much lower than in the west.
Some decades ago, even doctors & medical textbooks advised those with asthma to smoke (there are several anti-imflammatory effects of tobacco smoke alleviating auto-immune problems). All that makes causal relation behind correlations of reduced smoking/ETS and higher asthma rates even more plausible.
As to the WHO study which found 28% risk increase of LC among children of non-smokers (and the later study by the same group that found 67% LC increase for children of non-smokers), that again is epidemiology, the correlations on self-selected samples of smokers & non-smokers. While children don't select to be ET smokers or non-smokers, they do share the genetic & envirnomental paramaters with their parents, who did self-select themselves into those categories.
In the self-medication model (b) of correlations between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases, the forces biasing statistics here would tend to make smokers and their children (who share their parents' environmental exposures & genetics, but not as much the work exposures) get more lung cancers caused by the combination of environmental carcinogenic exposures & genetic sensitivities to them, the effects of which are alleviated by the protective effects of tobacco smoke (such as higher antioxidant & detox rates).
The fact that these WHO studies found protective effect, which is contrary to the above bias, means that the protective effect of ETS on children at biochemical level is even stronger than those statistics would indicate.
As a bit of trivia, there is even more pecuiliar example of protective effect of tobacco smoke on children, the primary smoke. The BMJ (Feb. 26 1977) editorial page letter from Dr. C.Y. Caldwell reported on medical research of Semai people in Maylasia. Semai children start smoking at age 2 and continue smoking worry free into the ripe old age. Dr. Caldwell reported that a massive thourough medical examination (including chest X-rays) of all 12000 adult Semai didn't find a single lung cancer. (See W.T. Whitby's book "Smoking Scare De-bunked" 1986 ed., pp. 26, 103.)
In conclusion, yes ETS is good for the health of non-smokers including children. Animal experiments, where low intensity smoke exposures start from 'childhood' show such beneficial effects. The only difference is that animals getting the higher doses (of course, not at asphyxiating levels), benefit even more, in a simple dose response relation. Hence, the only downside of ETS is that it isn't as beneficial as the real thing, the primary smoke. But, the ET smokers can't really complain about that, since they are already getting more than what they paid for.
I think that this blog has really started to "smoke".
I would encourage anyone who has not read the two 1950 reports to download them at this link.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4223
We need to be careful with some very important terms. 1) How do you define a smoker vs. a non-smoker. For Doll and Wynder, anyone who smoked at least one cigarette a day for one year is considered a smoker for research purposes. It didn't matter if you quit when you were 17 years old. 2) Old News about lung cancer. Reports of lung cancer prior to the 1920's are all anecdotal because no central authority had been established to record causes of death until then, (except for plague, tuberculosis and other highly communicable and fatal disease).
As far as more lung cancer occuring in heavier smokers goes, these were the conclusions drawn from the two 1950 studies linked above. Doll, naively and honestly, admitted in the paper that 30% of his lung cancer patients, who smoked, didn't inhale. Wynder just claimed that everyone inhaled and never showed his work. We know for a fact from watching old movies and advertisements that many "social" smokers in those days did not inhale. It appears, roughly, that all of the reduction in smoking that has occured since the 1964 SGs' report can be accounted for by simply subtracting the non-inhalers from the number of all smokers.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
idlex
Pipes and cigars are smoked in a more leisurely fashion, in a world run increasingly by the clock, cigarettes would have made more sense with a short tea break.
I am still stuck on that lung cancer being rare until 1920 thing. - Rose
While it is true that smoking has been around for centuries, it was only after 1880 that cigarettes became popular. This made a big difference, and if I may be allowed to quote from my own book:
"The key difference between cigarettes and other forms of smoking is that the tobacco in cigarettes is cured in a way that makes it acidic while pipe and cigar smoke are alkaline. And because the mouth is acidic, the alkaline cigar smoke allows nicotine to be absorbed through the gums while being too harsh to be inhaled. The lungs, however, are alkaline and the (acidic) cigarette smoke is able to be absorbed by them, allowing nicotine to go almost instantly into the blood stream and to reach the brain within seconds. But it also allows carcinogenic components in the smoke to make contact with the delicate lining of the lungs and bronchial tubes and makes the development of cancer in these areas more likely."
To this, we might add that cancer only became properly diagnosed in the 20th century and that the number of people living old enough to contract lung cancer (average age of diagnosis is 70) increased massively after the First World War.
It is also true to say that other possible factors - diesel fumes, x-rays etc - increased greatly as the century wore on. All these factors probably played a part, but the rise of the cigarette over the pipe is widely accepted as the major contributor to the rise in lung cancer cases.
Consumption: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences
http://tinyurl.com/6gyvly
The best place to begin with is tobacco. As it was a crop grown primarily in the 13 colonies, no accurate records of consumption exist for America, although all evidence points to it becoming a mass-consumption item almost immediately after becoming a staple. Colonial consumption of the product avergaed between 2 pounds and 5 pounds per capita per annum throughout the eighteenth century.
Large scale shipments of the plant into England began with the settlement of the Chesapeake. It was also grown, of course, in many other colonies and, despite government laws to the contrary, in England itself until the end of the seventeenth century. The first column in table 2 reports the annual average of pounds per capita of legal imported tobacco retained for hom consumption. The figures suggest that sometime in the mide-seventeenth century, tobacco, by the standard described above, became a mass consumption item. Circa 1670 per capita consumption reached one pound. Two pounds of tobacco a year would probably allow enough for a pipeful a day, and so total imports could furnish 2,700,000 or 50 percent of the total populace with that ration. The actual number of regular smokers fell far below that, yet there was too much tobacco around for it to have been all consumed by an elite group. For either the wealthiest 5 per cent of the population or the adult population of London to have been the only consumers, each person would have had to smoke 20 pounds a year, about three times the amount consumed by Britons in the mid-twentieth century.
If full information on imports and domestic production were available, it might actually turn out that mass consumption began prior to 1650, in the 1630s or 1640s when producer prices dropped to one-fourth or less of the original selling price. During the late 1630s, London alone received an average of 1.8 million pounds legally, enough for one quarter of the adult population to smoke 2 pounds annually; much of that was exported. however...
His corrections suggest neither a big drop nor an increase during the first half of the eighteenth century but rather a rate of consumption fluctuating around 2 pounds per capita...
In addition, pipe smoking, the primary means of taking tobacco in early modern England, was closely associated with the alehouse. Almost from the beginning, publicans had been the main retailers of both tobacco and pipes, and they offered easy access to affordable amounts of the narcotic. The pipeful became another of the refreshments connected with alehouse social life. When in the latr eighteenth century the alehouse fell into decline, it is hard to believe that it did not affect smoking habits as well. It is interesting to note that British tobacco consumption only began to rise above early modern levels in the twentieth century with the marketing of the cigarette, a product that attracted many new customers, especially the female population.
The suggestion in this passage is that mid-twentieth century UK tobacco consumption was about 6 pounds per person per annum. And had been about 2 pounds per person from about 1650 to 1750.
Pipes and cigars are smoked in a more leisurely fashion, in a world run increasingly by the clock, cigarettes would have made more sense with a short tea break.
That might explain the lower pre-cigarette tobacco consumption figures of the eighteenth century. Pipe smokers, in my experience, tend to smoke their pipes slowly, frequently re-lighting them. Pipes are perhaps very much the preferred method in a relatively leisurely era. In the hectic modern era, there simply isn't the time, and the five-minute cigarette has replaced it. Maybe tobacco consumption rose simply because tobacco was being smoked more quickly.
And because the mouth is acidic, the alkaline cigar smoke allows nicotine to be absorbed through the gums while being too harsh to be inhaled. The lungs, however, are alkaline and the (acidic) cigarette smoke is able to be absorbed by them, allowing nicotine to go almost instantly into the blood stream and to reach the brain within seconds. - Christopher Snowdon
I very seldom smoke cigars, but I smoked one just a week or so ago, and I smoked it much like I smoke cigarettes, inhaling. The cigar took me about one and a quarter hours to smoke, and left me feeling pleasantly dizzy, and it was another 4 hours after finishing it that I felt any wish for a cigarette. I don't think that would have happened if I hadn't absorbed smoke into my lungs. I certainly wasn't holding smoke in my mouth for any length of time.
And surely the pH value of tobacco smoke is likely to change once it is inhaled and becomes mixed with other acidic or alkaline vapours. The point of inhaling tobacco smoke would seem to be that the surface area of lungs is far larger than that of the mouth, allowing a more rapid uptake of the active components of tobacco smoke, only one of which is nicotine or a compound of nicotine such as nicotinic acid.
the rise of the cigarette over the pipe is widely accepted as the major contributor to the rise in lung cancer cases. - Christopher Snowdon
Was. They indeed started out fingering cigarettes as the culprit, but now they lump cigarettes and pipes and cigars together as "smoking", and ban them all. It's another example of the ever-changing claims of antismokers.
total cases of LC, yes, but age-adjusted cases of LC/ unit population is soemthing else. the latter has been declining since 1990 in males. and now leveled in females because they started quitting later than males. Just counting lung cancer cases, does not tell us enough about it's prevalence. Age adjustment also offsets concerns about people dying of other causes before old enough to be diagnosed with LC.
My time trend paper compared smoking rates in birth groups over time to lung cancer cases decades later. But I did present birth cohort smoking rates in the 1930's and 1940s and looked at lung cancer in the same birth cohorts in the 1970s and 1980s. So, if LC has an incubation time less than 40 years, I should pick up an impact. Infact , I did.
heart attack data...i couldn't even pick up an impact from smoking declines and changes in age adjusted heart attack rates over long time spans. Yet we're to believe Helena? or now this English BS? If one can't detect an impact from half of all smokers quitting over 40 years, how can 40% of heart attacks be eliminated almost instantaniously post ban? time trends do not support the claim smoking increases them. time trends tend to be useful and tend to (if anything) underestimate the impact of a risk on public health.
I regret that I canot express myself as clearly as nightlight can, but I do want to say that I am in complete agreement with him.
Dave K -- With all due respect to your work, I think what nightlight is pointing out is that measures of association remain measures of association. They cannot establish causality, and those studies that might be stronger evidence, (animal studies, for example), tend to do quite the opposite.
I must admit though, that I do not understand (and am still puzzling over) what you meant by--
"yes, time trend studies are among the weakest studies insofar as pure science is concerned, but the best, to answer public policy questions. and, they represent the impact on a much larger population, which cannot suffer from selection bias because the population is the same population that we hope the science can improve the health of, if applied."
How do you mean that the weakest scientific studies are the best to establish public policy? Such studies can only "represent the impact on the population", if causality is assumed (based on what you called the weakest form of study").
Isn't that putting the cart a bit before the horse?
Dave K,
I think very highly of your work.
How much lung cancer per 100,000 smokers did you find and how did the rates compare male/female per 100,000 smokers? We're males more likely to develop lung cancer?
My thinking about the cohorts you used is that there may not have been enough lung cancer in the 40 to 50 year old age groups to draw conclusions. These cohorts are at the very bottom end of the age cohorts in which Doll and Wynder measured a significant number of lung cancer cases.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
total cases of LC, yes, but age-adjusted cases of LC/ unit population is soemthing else. the latter has been declining since 1990 in males. - Dave K
That's what bothers me about age-adjusted figures. The raw lung cancer figures show raw lung cancer cases coninuing to increase, while the age-adjusted figures show them decreasing. It bothers me that increases get turned into decreases this way. Particularly when you generally only get to see age adjusted figures, and seldom the raw numbers from which they're calculated.
As I understand it, the point of age adjustment is to make the figures from one country comparable with another (or with the same country at another time) with a different population age distribution. For example the current European population has a more or less even distribution of the population across all ages. Developing countries with growing populations typically have a population peak in the younger age groups. Age adjustment allows comparison of like with like.
It's a bit like if you have two schools, the first of which produces 10 successful graduates a year, and the second 30. So the second school is better than the first. But if there are only 20 students at the first school, and 200 at the second, you're not comparing like numbers if you just set 10 next to 30. You really have multiply the first number by 200/20 or 10 if you want to compare like with like. The class-adjusted figures are then 100 for the first school and 30 for the second. And the so the first school is better. But then suppose that the first school has 10 teachers, and the second has 20 teachers. You really ought to produce some teacher-adjusted figures, no? You can keep on thinking of things to adjust for. Height above sea level, etc. And with each adjustment the numbers change.
Or else, you go visit the first school and the head teacher says, "Sure, we produce fewer graduates than the school up the road. But, class-adjusted, we do better." So you go to the school up the road, and tell them this, and the head teacher snorts and says, "But teacher-adjusted we still do better than those dumbasses." So you go back to the first school.., and so on, and on. In the end, maybe, you get to cease to care about these dizzying numbers. And use a completely different criterion. The kids seemed happier at one school. I'll send Johnny there.
Dave K:
"or now this English BS?"
In the normal scheme of things we should expect a bold statement soon from TC England about heart attacks - as an first birthday gift to themselves. But given the Pell farce and the signs that ASH UK/England are wobbling a little on this issue – I am wondering as to whether English TC has another Pell lined up to take it on the chin?
Place your bets now.
"To this, we might add that cancer only became properly diagnosed in the 20th century and that the number of people living old enough to contract lung cancer (average age of diagnosis is 70) increased massively after the First World War."
It seems the chicken and the egg just wont go away in regards to smoking.
The only thing consistent seems to be the death grip modern science refuses to relinquish, had its origins in 1930s Germany. In an industrial socialist government highly reliant on propaganda, and a medical group struggling to please Adolph with obvious repercussions had they failed.
Conclusions made long before the physical effects could possibly be assessed, compared to the perspectives we understand today. Perspectives used in all other arenas of science and technology, which demonstrate huge benefit from accelerated scientific progress, all with the exception of "smoking related diseases" Smoking research still resides in the knowledge and spin created in 1930.
The medical community stands on the fact, human experimentation is unethical therefore we have to rely on the epidemiological process to draw any conclusions.
The effect of tobacco smoke entering the lungs and bloodstream sets in motion the anti oxidant process of self defense and a host of other chemical responses directly or as; secondary, third or fourth generational reaction streams, signaled by compounds formed with other chemicals already in the system, according to physical conditions and genetic predisposition. Therefore smoking would trigger defense systems inside the body in reaction to chemical sensing mechanics.
What happens when that trigger is not pulled? because there is no sense of contamination requiring defenses, as we see on the external skin.
What about the fingers and the external surfaces of the body which would not set those defenses or reactions into motion?
If the carcinogenic effect was originating solely in the smoke the lower temperature of burn and higher concentration of smoke coming in contact with your fingers with no defenses in play, should demonstrate a high incidence of cancers on the hands, which is not evident to date,
What of the inhalation methods and why do some get lung cancers and most don't? has anyone ever done a serious evaluation of what they are lighting a cigarette with?
In the 50s - 60s, Zippo lighters and liquid fluid on cotton burned with a wick was popular, before that matches and recently the bic lighter is the most popular mode of ignition.
Did the Zippo leave a sediment oily coating on the whole cigarette after it was lit, and as we see with diesel exhaust and gasoline fumes could the Zippo be the cause of cancers of the lung and not the less likely cigarette smoke, by physical evaluation we can already demonstrate by holding up a middle finger.
Dave: total cases of LC, yes, but age-adjusted cases of LC/ unit population is something else. the latter has been declining since 1990 in males.
Let's first keep in mind that even a perfect match in secular trends with no cherry picked adjustements at all, still cannot demonstrate even that smoking and LC are in the same localized graph of causes & effects (which case-control studies can), let alone resolve between the models (a), (b) or (c) or find the proper location of smoking in such graph. As noted before, the reason for the fatal problem in the very first step (prove the belonging to the same cause-effect graph of TS & LC) is that you would have to find all trends of all single or combined bulk parameters (astronimical figures) then apportion the probabilities to each of those trends based on some measure of proximity to the LC trend. You or anyone else can't even begin dreaming about dreaming of taking on such a task.
Merely showing that the trends of LC & smoking roughly (or even perfectly) match, amounts to showing only that the two trends do not outright exclude smoking and LC from belonging to the same graph and thus do not outright exclude its possible model (a). Match in secular trends is a necessary condition for belonging to the same cause-effect graph, but not a sufficient condition. Hence there is vast gap of astronomical magnitude between that finding and (1) showing that TS & LC must belong to the same cause-effect graph with significant probability (by accounting for astronomical number of other trends and evaluating their proximity to LC) and another large gap showing that (2) the relation of TS & LC within this graph is best explained by model (a). The latter step cannot be resolved even with the sharpest epidemiological lenses (due to the intrinsic self-selection confounding), much less using much fuzzier bulk trend tools, which can't even get beyond the step #1.
With all that in mind, but ignored for a moment, the reason why the absolute numbers of cigarettes and lung cancers are more pertinent than the 'age adjusted' LC figures and survey derived smoking rates, is because of the alleged underlying mechanism. In order for TS to cause lung cancer, the smoke particles and their molecular compunds are supposed to interact with lung cells, and this interaction would cause some damage to the cellular biochemical network (e.g. turn on some oncogen; there are many other hypothetical mechanism here, though, including epigentic/non-DNA modelsof LC etiology). After certain number of such damaging interactions has accumulated on some cell, that cell would tip over and start replicating uncontrollably, becoming thus malignant. Other larger scale/systemic biochemical mechanisms, more active in younger people, may recognize and kill (via apoptosis) such malignant cell, but eventually with aging, these protective mechanisms would weaken and fail to eliminate the tipped over cell and that cell would continue replicating, resulting in the actual lung cancer.
With that very coarse sketch of the hypothetical sequence of cellular events leading to LC via smoking, it is clear that first relevant parameter for the total number of LC's is: TNI = total number of interactions between smoke particles and lung cells in the country. This number is proportional to total quantity of smoke inhaled. The latter has declined since 1950 because of much lower ETS exposure (say, by factor 2, likely more) and by much lower tar (smoke particles) in the modern cigarettes (by factor 2-3). Hence that TNI has declined by a factor of 4 to 6 times since 1950. Hence the total number of damages to the biochemical networks, repearable or not, of lung cells has declined by factor 4-6.
In order for these 4-6 times fewer total damages to cause 8-10 times more lung cancers, you need somehow to show that the damages in old enough segment of population, which did increase since 1950 (life expectancy rose by 7-10 years), can somehow account for the 32-60 times greater effectiveness of the tobacco smoke particles (e.g. in number of tipoff damages per, say, trillion interactions from TNI), in causing the final/tipoff non-repearable damages. Tobacco smoke particles didn't get smarter in causing damage at all, while biochemical repair mechanisms didn't become so much dumber on average due to the increase in elderly fraction of the population.
I think no matter how you model this mechanism through some computer simulation, short of making the smoke particle more effective in damaging lung cells, the increase in the non-repearable tipoff damages per interaction due to the increase in older peopulation (factor 2-3 at most) would be at least order of magnitude smaller than the required factor 32-60 times more tipoff damages per interaction observed.
Since such secular trends are a mere necessary condition (but not sufficient) for smoking and LC to belong to the same causes-effects graph, even if you could simulate this 32-60 times factor gap perfectly, which I don't you could, all you would have demonstrated is that secular trends do not exclude possibility that TS and LC belong to the same causes-effects graph. The case-control studies have already established that belonging and more since 1950s (that smoking & LC are in fact in the same causes-efects graph, not just that they may be in such graph).
Of course, neither statistical method, both being limited to observing self-selected subjects (and without having any way to understand, quantify and adjust for all of the underlying causes of that self-selection), has enough resolution to distinguish between the hypotheses (a), (b) or (c) for explaining the correlations.
That's what hard science (e.g. animal experiments) is for. With all other chemical, physical or biological class 1 carcinogens, all except primary tobacco smoke, the animal models produce cancers much easier than what the epidemiological results suggest. With tobacco smoke, which is via wishful interpretation of epidemiology also classified as class 1 carcinogen, it is exactly the opposite -- we not only have difficulty making animals die from lung cancers at least at the rate expected from the model (a) interpretation of epidemiology, but we can't make them die younger or even as old as non-smoking animals from the supposed damage by this class 1 carcinogen.
Hence, tobacco smoke is the most unique class 1 carcinogen among them all, which substantially (by ~20 percent) extends the lifespan of animals "damaged" by it, while all others reduce it as significantly. Living 20 percent longer, staying 20 percent thinner and keeping more of the marbles rolling into the old age -- 'vot a damage'! Also, since being "damaged" by it can be quite enjoyable experience on its own, especially if you don't believe a word of the antismoking swindlers, who wouldn't want to be "damaged" so?
At least we know what else they were inhaling around the time that the British study was done.
Nothing unusual here for the time, just in these larger amounts it killed them quickly.
Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
With slides!
http://www.ehponline.org/members.../6114/
6114.html
The Great Smog of 1952- Met Office
"Contemporary accounts tell of the fog being so thick that the other side of the street could not be seen. They also tell of the fog bearing a distinct smell of coal tar."
"The industrial revolution brought factory chimneys that belched gases and huge numbers of particles into the atmosphere. Some of these particles caused lung and eye irritations. Others were poisonous. All were potentially condensation nuclei, the tiny hygroscopic particles on which condensation forms. From the gases, corrosive acids were formed, notably sulphuric acid, which is produced when sulphur dioxide combines with oxygen and water".
"As if it were not enough that they brought on agues, rheumatism and fevers and carried particles of soot from coal fires, the fogs of the British Isles now became even more unpleasant, for the noxious emissions from factory chimneys gave them an acrid taste, an unpleasant odour and a dirty yellow or brown colour. These fogs, so different from the clean white fogs of country areas, came to be known as 'pea soupers', not only in London but also in other industrial areas of the British Isles. The particles in the atmosphere made buildings dirty and the acids attacked ironwork, stonework and fabrics."
I remember those smogs, sometimes they rolled out of the cities and into the countryside.The colours are correct.
Seeing the amount of airborne acids they were inhaling continuously its a wonder they could breathe at all.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/educ...dents/
smog.html
Originally a by-product of the coking process, coal gas was extensively exploited in the 19th and early 20th Centuries for lighting, cooking and heating. The development of manufactured gas paralleled that of the industrial revolution and urbanization; and the byproducts, coal tars and ammonia, were at some times an important chemical feedstock for the dye and chemical industry. The whole rainbow of artificial dye colours is made from coal gas and coal tar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_gas
That smelt absolutely vile too, as a child I remember being distinctly unhappy having to visit houses that used town gas, the smell met you before you got to the door.
2What about the fingers and the external surfaces of the body which would not set those defenses or reactions into motion?"
The first three fingers on the right hand of man are immune to cancer...
Fritz Lickint said so!
Page 80
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...d&
start_page=81
( I love that one, fills you with confidence, doesn't it? )
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/Pa.../Page/
6100.html
The Banzhaf appearance on the Fox Morning show can be seen on the link above. Gary Nolan also was on the show and did a Great Job!
****
Idlex, you are signed up to access the Forces nicotinic acid area. Rose, please sign up at Forces, it'll be great to put all your research in one spot.
Cause and affect has some substantial snags according to this testimony;
http://tobaccodocuments.org/indu...=1&
end_page=137
Excerpts;
"Q Did you say~that you came with the National Cancer Institute as the Chief of the Environmental Cancer Section?
A . That is right"
"Q Actually Dr. when was an increase in lung cancer first noted?
A The pathologists of central Europe, particularly in Germany where autopsies were performed for many years in hospital institutes of pathology, the University institutes of pathology on the.majority of patients who died in these hospitals, the percentage rate ran between 90% and 950 of the deaths which occurred showed around 1920 that there had been a gradual, and progressive increase in lung cancer death observed in autopsies since the turn of the Century.
Q Since about 1900?
A Around 1900
A It is pretty well established from statements in literature that a wide spread and general use of the cigarette among the people of industrialized countries started with the first World War.
That means there was an increase in the lung cancer incidence before the custom of smoking cigarettes became a widespread habit."
Gilster
Thank you,I do hope what I wrote is correct and has a warning on, saying this person has no clue what she is talking about , but may have come up with the odd interesting theory!
Talking of corrections
I have finally found what Dr Doll was doing in Nazi Germany in 1936.
The dates were bothering me and I do like to be fair.
"Along with a number of my colleagues, I had the experience of actually visiting Nazi Germany and seeing what was happening there.
There was a St Thomas' man called Stephen Taylor (subsequently Lord Taylor ) and he had the very sensible idea of arranging trips to foreign countries to study medicine and see how medicine was taught in those countries...
...And then in 1936,we had a similar week in Frankfurt and we had some extraordinary experiences there of the effects of Nazism"....
Oral history Sir Richard Doll
His career in his own words.
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals...nt/26/4/
327.pdf
Though I still can't see how he as a smoker, managed to spend a week in Germany in 1936 and not notice that there was a huge anti-smoking campaign going on.
Well, another factor regarding age adjustment of LC cases, is that, in the 1950s, the average age of diagnosis of LC was about 58, and that had upshifted to age 68-70 by 1990. Just counting raw lung cancer data, misses that impact, ..another reason why age adjustment can pick up a positive effect of 1/2 of us quitting, while raw data cannot. Wouldn't we all agree if hypothesis (a) is operating, that it's nicer if people live longer before getting LC as a result of 1/2 of us quitting?
GDF, time trend studies are a more pragmatic approach to public health. Arguments abounded as to fluoridination of our drinking water supplies, but when we did flor our water supply, dental caries declined. We don't really need to argue the science of how fluoridination works, we only need to look at the results to know it's sound public health policy.
Same with clorination of water impacting prevalence of choloera, requiring immunizations of our children eliminated polio, yada yada, the time trends proved those are sound public ehalth policy. Of course, the very root of the word epidemiology is epidemic, and back then, that art or science was applied to control of infectious agents most often, where results could be monitored quicker. Epi got into trouble when it started beign applied to areas beyond microbes. because we had to wait longer to observe results, and assocaitions genenrally became weaker, making them harder to detect.
nightlight, Ok, look, i don't totally disagree with all of your points, earlier, you spoke of an indirect causation via your sunglasses argument which is a nice example. If we could discover some other cause of LC, much stronger than the assocaition between TS-LC we are trying to detect, and then if we found out that smokers are exposed much more often to that, we could offer an alternate explanation for our obseravtions via epi studies, and question their results.
animal studies...... animals do not always metabolize foreign substances the same as we do, this is why the fda requires human drug trials after animal safety studys. BTW the Syrian golden hampster, does , for some reason get LC from tobacco smoke, true, most other animals tested do not. so do humans belong in the same camp as syrian g hamsters. or with the other animals? ..that has to be answered before we can understand results of animal experiments.
i agree with your TNI spiel ....but if you go back and look at my historical smoking data by birth group you'll see all birth groups do have very similar smoking histories up to age 35-45. If TNI interactions before age 35-45, are enough to set the LC incubation in motion, then quitting after age 35-45 may be of little value. and thus my observation of less impact by americans quitting that would otherwise be expected. it's possible some TNI after age 35-45 in some individuals is neessary to bring on LC, and if the model that most LC gets started before age 35-45 is most common, but in, some cases further exposure to primary smoking in some individuals is also needed to bring LC on, then the impact of half of us quitting would be less.
also, the first birth group of women who staretd smoking did so average age 30-40, and that BG did not develop LC.
So, time trends MAY depend not, as you say, on total number of smoke particles assimilated by our population, but WHEN, (at what age) the assimilation (on average) occurred. animals do not live 40 years beyond middle age, so that could explain why genenrally TS-LC is not observed in them. Perhaps parrots would make good test animals since they live even longer than humans.
Ok, I think this discussion is very valuable, because there are very valid arguments made by nightlight, and others that challenge to soem extent a RR of somewhere between 7 and 20. (TS v. LC) And, again, demonstres with agreement by most of us why you can't rely on a SHS rr of 1.3 at all.
Is this why Doc has been silent during this discussion?
I beleive all the problems you'all are pointing out can counfound shs epi studies, but are not sufficient to confound primary smoking studies because the RR is just too high.
Public Health has never claimed that tobacco smoke "causes" lung cancer. The 1964 SG's report redefined the word "cause" as they, and all subsequent, Public Health reports would use it.
"In carrying out our studies through the use of this epidemiological method, many factors, variables, and results of investigation must be considered to determine first whether an association actually exists between an attribute or agent and a disease. Judgement on this point is based upon indirect and direct measures of the suggested association. If it be shown that an association exists, then the question is asked: "Does the association have a causal significance?"
Statistical methods cannot establish proof of a causal relationship in an association. The causal significance of an association is a matter of judgement which goes beyond any statement of statistical probability. To judge or evalute the causal significance of the association between the attribute or agent and the disease, or effect upon health, a number of criteria must be utilized, no one of which is an all sufficient basis for judgement. These criteria include:
a) The consistancy of the association
b) The strength of the association
c) The specificity of the association
d) The temporal relationship of the association
e) The coherence of the association
These criteria were utilized in various sections of this report. The most extensive and illuminating account of their utilization is to be found in Chapter 9 in the section entitled "Evaluation of the Association Between Smoking and Lung Cancer"."
On the next page:
"4. It should be said at once, however, that no member of this committee used the word "cause" an an absolute sense in the area of this study."
This means that "cause" is determined by a consensus of opinion about circumstantial evidence. No hard science is needed and hard science was never expected to prove any cause and effect releationship. This definition opened the door to all sorts of mischief making.
All you have to do is present your case to other health professionals, who don't have the experience or expertise, to understand what the heck you are presenting them with. If it sounds good, and doesn't break some fundamental rules about being completely unreasonable, you can build your consensus and over time your research will become the new consensus.
One of the unwritten fundamental rules is that no research that threatens the current consensus will be given serious consideration. i.e. tobacco kills and we don't want to hear anything to the contrary so if your research says that it doesn't it will either be ignored or ridiculed.
Most lung cancer occurs in old men, of whom 30 to 45%, or more, maybe all, already have prostate cancer.
Fatal cancers may actually be the result on immuno-deficiencies. The AAV-2 virus has been shown to kill 6 different kinds of cancer cells in precisely 6 days, in a lab setting. Most people carry this virus and no one has ever known why we have it and what it does.
On observations and measurements: the King's astronomers had no problem measuring the arc the Sun made through the sky as it orbited the Earth. They made very accurate observations and measurements of it's movement. No further proof was needed and anyone producing evidence that contradicted the "conventional wisdom" was met with derision or even imprisonment.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Dave K wrote:
"GDF, time trend studies are a more pragmatic approach to public health. Arguments abounded as to fluoridination of our drinking water supplies, but when we did flor our water supply, dental caries declined. We don't really need to argue the science of how fluoridination works, we only need to look at the results to know it's sound public health policy."
Dave, on many levels I must disagree with that statement. In fact, as a public health statistician and policy analyst, I find it a bit scary. The implication of that and your next paragraph is that if "public health" does something, and over a period of time, incidence of X declines, that is sufficient to conclude a cause and effect?
It's just not so, Dave. In fact it's possible that X would have declined even more, absent the action of public health. Or, that there were unintended confounders related to the primary action of public health (e.g., the flouridation debate itself could have increased public awareness of dental hygeine). Or -- that the two were simply co-incident and unrelated. Unless you can understand and demonstrate the "how", you are still only guessing. (Although, as nightlight points out, it doesn't exclude your explanation).
Also,
"If we could discover some other cause of LC"
It seems that there is a focus in this discussion on environmental causes -- so I'll mention HPV here. HPV seems to be knocking some holes in the TS-cervical cancer and TS-throat cancer associations lately. I'm just starting to see news about the HPV-LC connection. All of this raises very importsant questions (for me) about anti-viral properties of TS.
As an aside, it reminds me of all the "lifestyle" theories that were tossed around (all fitting with the epi evidence of association) before the HIV/AIDS connection was discovered.
And then, if we go beyond environmental causes -- we can look to genetics. Just recently wasn't it -- the three publications on a possible LC gene?
In any case, I'm just trying to say that measured associations are sometimes interesting -- but rarely as simple as we try to make them.
Dave K
The problem for me is, I just can't seem to find that magic ingredient that makes tobacco smoke unique, all the ones we have been presented with turn out to be in everyday things often in greater quantities and the human body seems well able to cope with them, some go completely the other way.
After all, who would have thought that small amounts of carbon monoxide would be good for you and an essential part of the immune system?
Yet there it is.
Now we know so much more, I still have to side with the air pollution theories, which confusingly seems to have coincided with cigarettes.
Then again maybe the cigarette smoking is the symptom that points to the cause, after all inhalation is a fairly classical way of delivering medicines to the lungs, look at vapour rubs and Friars Balsam.
http://www.herbaled.org/THM/Comp...nds/
friars.html
GDF, if dental caries went up in some jurisdictions post floridation, then I agree, if they went down in all jursidictions post flor, then I think that would be evidence flor is sound public ehalth policy. if an = number of jurisdictions without flor also have similar declines in caries, then you are also correct.
So if X almost always reacts the way the hypothesis predicts it will, then that reinforces the hypothesis.
if X reacts in a predictable manner with respect to public health, reproducibly, then utilizing that info is a pretty useful guess.
GDF, yep, there is nothing simple about human disease etiology. But to move forward, we need to ustilize imperfect science until perfect science is available.
another thing, re HPV, reminds me that perhaps the 1918 flu, the first rinovirus flu, (I think) in conjunction with smoking may have lead to the LC epidemic. ...sure the possibilities are endless, but these swine- bird flu variants seem to have very unstable genomes since, 1918, and since virus inject their own rna or dna as the case may be, into host cells, ( lungs in this case) then perhaps that is plausible. perhaps the geneitc substitute is sensitive to further mutation via tobacco smoke, since most animals used in nightlight's animal experiments do not get sick from these rino virus flus, then perhaps an explanation why smoking impacts humans, but not most animals is at hand.
yep, the possibilities are endless, but bottom line is when smoking goes down, eventually LC follows
The epi based risk factor falls down because it assumes all who are at risk are genetically identical and obviously few of us are easy to shoehorn into descriptive and similar categories when smoking related diseases are the issue.
A 1.3 RR may work when the subject group all have cancer however in reality very few who smoke even for a lifetime actually get LC. in the larger perspective only 50% of smokers are even affected by smoking related diseases. With that in mind does the risk factor describe a risk in total population when we know a large percentage of the population group are not at risk? The irresponsible nature of scaring people deliberately in order to provoke an action or choice. Coercion should always have been the issue of discussion And how it should apply to the actions of so called "medical experts".
Either we respect the laws of autonomy or we slip back to a time when no such standards of human co-operation in protecting the rights of each other applied.
The Lewin calculation describing prevalence of disease, was always flawed because it failed to acount for natural occurance among the disease group
[Incidence - non exposed incidence]/Incidence
You can never eliminate any degree of association. The calculation will always demonstrate a positive association even if you know none actually exists. As in the case of equal disease occurrence tested with the model which produces by a 50% incidence in both groups a 100% association among the exposed group.
The calculation assumes an association already exists and had those exposed not been exposed, they would not have seen equal numbers of diseases, as were seen in the non exposed group.
Further the assumption is also supporting; exposure could not have a beneficial effect even if the disease was found to originate elsewhere.
EinsteinSmoked: The 1964 SG's report redefined the word "cause" as they, and all subsequent, Public Health reports would use it. ... These criteria include:...
In short, our Health Taliban has laid down the law for us regular mortals based on a belief of a group of High Mullahs.
Unfortunately, as long as the vast majority of smokers lives in fear and guilt under the paralyzing spell of the 'original sin' proclaimed by the Mullahs in the 1964 SG report, they will not defend themselves and topple this handful of pompous tyrants. I hope the good folks of FORCES will realize this and get off their timid, wishy washy position on health effects of smoking (smoking is maybe not quite as harmful as claimed, ETS is not harmful), drop the ETS crusade altogether or attempts to assure non-smokers or argue with antismokers or politicians or media... How do you organize an army when all your soldiers live in fear and guilt and would much rather be on the other side? You will have as much luck as trying to organize 'wife beaters' or thieves or adulturers to fight for their rigths. How many will you have marching behind you? Yep, as many as you have smokers marching behind you now.
The only way smokers will organize en masse and stand up in force to the 'Health Taliban' is to free them from the 'original sin' and educate them on what the hard science of tobacco smoke has established unambiguously: Smoking is good for you. The smoking animals, even under the terrible smoking conditions contrived to maximize harm, not only do not get prematurtely killed by lung cancers, emphysemas, heart attacks,... but they live 20 percent longer than non-smoking animals, stay 20 percent thinner, remain more youthful and do better on cognitive tests,... Until that message gets through to all smokers, FORCES will remain where it was when it began. As soon as that awakening happens, the antismoking fraud will perish overnight.
The focus must be exclusively on smokers and how to get the word to them "Smoking is good for you" as quickly as possible. All other ineffectve diversions need to be dropped immediately, such as assuring non-smokers on ETS, arguing with antismokers, trying to convince media or politicians, politicking or taking stand on global warming, religion,... or on anything else. The sole focus should be on how to educate as quickly as possible every smoker on the key fact of hard science about tobacco smoke: "Smoking is good for you." When that is achieved in good numbers, all other pieces will fall into their proper places automatically.
yep, the possibilities are endless, but bottom line is when smoking goes down, eventually LC follows - Dave K
Before lung cancer incidence started multiplying, it was stomach cancer that was the great scourge. Then the incidence of stomach cancer started dropping. What was the cause of stomach cancer? Why did it fade away?
So also heart disease. That seems to have peaked sometime in the late 20th century, and the incidence of that is falling across the western world - a wave which all these Helena-type studies keep surfing. Why is the incidence of heart disease falling? Does anybody know?
Watching these big waves come sweeping through looks more like watching weather systems than anything.
The Black Death came in a big wave . And then it went away. Most of these epidemics come, and then go, eventually. Eventually the prayers of the faithful were answered, and the Black Death subsided. Does that prove the efficacy of prayer?
Rose, your post yesterday at
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=20351#162573
has some bad links in it. Have you still got those links?
Dave K, how do you then explain the "Japanese smoking paradox".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...Pubmed_RVDocSum
Their explanation was: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The main factors likely to have brought about the difference in the odds ratio/relative risk between Japan and the USA (and perhaps other Western countries as well) are: lower alcohol consumption by Japanese males; lower fat intake by Japanese males; higher efficiency of filters on Japanese cigarettes; lower levels of carcinogenic ingredients in Japanese cigarettes; and lung-cancer-resistant hereditary factors among Japanese males.
and could this be the explanation in the continued rise in lung in women?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...ogdbfrom=pubmed
Induced menopausal women with experience of hormone replacement therapy had a significantly elevated risk compared to naturally menopausal women without female hormone use, with an RR of 2.40 (95% CI 1.07-5.40). These findings suggest that both endogenous and extraneous estrogen may be involved in the etiology of lung cancer. Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
or maybe it's this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...ogdbfrom=pubmed
Body mass index and lung cancer risk in women.
Studies have suggested that leanness in adulthood may be a risk factor for lung cancer;
RESULTS: After adjustment for pack-years of smoking and other covariates, there was some evidence for inverse associations in current smokers (hazard ratio for highest BMI quintile relative to the lowest = 0.63; 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.83) and in former smokers (0.69; 0.39-1.23), whereas in never-smokers, BMI was positively associated with lung cancer (2.19; 1.00-4.80). The results for current and former smokers were not altered by exclusion of cases diagnosed within the first 5 years of follow-up; however, in never-smokers the strength of the association was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: The present study contributes to the aggregate evidence suggesting that there may be an inverse association between BMI and lung cancer among smokers. However, the contrasting pattern of associations between BMI and lung cancer seen in ever-smokers and never-smokers in this study requires explanation.
Dave K.
We haven't even discussed bias in diagnoses, recall and reporting, psychophysiologic (witch-doctor) effects, straight out corruption, and well, a host of other problems that plague LC data.
And yes, best guesses are useful, but should lead to hard science to support or disprove those hypotheses.
As nightlight points out, we're not 5 years in -- we're at least 50 years in -- and still waiting.
I also agree whole-heartedly with idlex. Couldn't have said that better myself, idlex. We can produce any number of just-so stories to explain such rises and falls but... are the explanations on their own, of much use?
In addition to all sorts of historical effects (background radiation, diesel, diagnostic X-rays, changes in population compositions, women entering the workforce, changes in employment profiles, immigration, (to name a few) that have their own curves to plot... one would also want to consider the behaviors of microbes and their hosts in the continul co-evolution that occurs in nature. And again, what you will see depends greatly on what you choose to look at.
With regard to population stats answering questions about TS and LC, what I honestly believe is that you simply cannot get there from here. (here meaning the further examination of measures of association)
Which brought me to investigate the hard science. And I believe that there - the signs point to smoking as a healthful practice.
Stomach cancer.... may be associated with mold toxins, stomach cancer falls is societies when they start using refrigeration, in china, still leading site for cancer, not a hard answer, also pure food and drug act, they used to use red lead oxide for a food colorant before that passed. just my thoughts.
heart attacks, better imaging techniques to detect heart disease before attack occurs, more public awareness, early warning signs, cholesterol-busting drugs, tighter control of blood sugar and lowered specs......yes, seems that trend tuned around about year 2000.
japanese men..pure blooded jap males living in USA have similar LC rates as we do.
..go figure? it seems countries with lower auto use, or cleaner air due to atmospheric patterns have lower Lc rates even if higher smoking rates. ( the jap paradox also operates to a lesser extent in most european countries )My report talked about that. hypothesis (c) is probably operating as i said way back in this thread. Still , if auto pollution is a co-carcinogen with smoking, smoking declines would still eventually lead to LC declines.
yep hrt, same deal, any cancer inc lung has multiple causes, first the cause is say, tobacco smoke, but then we also need the cell not to be able to repair itself, then we need the immune system not to kill off the cell (could be the HRT factor in this step) then we need the small cancer cluster to trigger growth of blood vessles so it can get nutrients,
So, I suppose ya can say no cancer ever has one cause. Lots of things have to go wrong before a patient is considered to have cancer. rose..perhaps the nicotine soemhow helps small mutated cell clusters in lungs grow somehow? or could nicotine interfere with cell repair, or bind to some enzyme which a cell might use to make a repair? maybe that makes tobacco more unique, who knows..... ?
yeh, the word "cause' is a lulu. if you define 'cause' as smoking enables radioactive fallout, radon, urban pollution, chest x-rays, bird flu, asbestos, family history of LC, cooking methods, yada yada, to cause LC, then in my mind that is still smoking "causes" ( be it directly or indirectly,) lung cancer. yes I use the post 1964 definition here.
No matter what role smoking plays, it most certainly plays some role, reducing that role in a population should reduce prevalance of LC, and it does.
About risks:
A Small But Discussion-Worthy Risk:
Ryan Evans looks at exaggerations over secondhand smoke in this PDF file of his attack on the rationale behind some recent smoking bans -- though when it comes to smoking, the leading preventable cause of death, exaggeration should be unnecessary. Smoking kills, being around smokers for short periods does not.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
From the link above, leading to a PDF file at http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Do...tions%20v5.pdf:
There is no greater misconception in the argument against smoking than the health claims levied against environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The adverse health claims have been touted by everybody from the former Surgeon General of the United States to powerful lobbying groups and all the way down to the armchair smoking ban supporter. These health claims have been used to lay the primary foundations on which smoking bans are
being built upon despite the fact that claims being used should raise skepticism in anybody who looks below the surface.
The claims against ETS are too numerous to list, since in some way it seems that nearly every health ailment can mysteriously be tied back to secondhand smoke exposure. While this may seem like a humorous look at things, the problem with this approach is quite severe. By allowing such claims to go largely unchallenged, the smoking opponents have been able to use a wide array of ailments as supporting evidence when making arguments for smoking bans and tobacco legislation.
However, perhaps the most egregious claim that has been made and widely touted by ban proponents since it was first made is the statement by former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.
The above article also refers to publications of Kuneman/MCFadden and Siegel.
Dave: If we could discover some other cause of LC, much stronger than the association between TS-LC we are trying to detect,...
By equivocating "an association" and "a cause" above you have already quietly slipped in the assumption that hypothesis (a) is valid ("other cause" - when did correlation on self-selected subjects become cause?), even though that is precisely the question we are arguing about and trying to answer -- what is the underlying mechanism behind the associations: is it (a), (b) or (c) or any combination? You can't legitimately assume upfront as a premise the conclusion you are trying to prove. With that bit out of the way...
... and then if we found out that smokers are exposed much more often to that, we could offer an alternate explanation for our observations via epi studies, and question their results.
Translation: since we assumed upfront the validity of hypothesis (a) as the explanation of correlations, that is now The Truth requiring no proof or any support of hard science and it may even contradict the hard science (animal experiments) while still remaining The Truth. Unlike The Truth, any other alternative hypothesis does require full proof before it can rival The Truth. Sorry Dave, but that's a "no go" path. When and how, on what basis in hard science, did the hypothesis (a), 'TS causes LC', progress from its status of "potential explanations" (among several others equally consistent with the observed correlations on self-selected subjects) pending support of hard science, into "explanation"? It never did progress. And we already have plenty of hard science (lab experiments). There is nothing we are waiting for any more, to back it up. It was already thoroughly falsified by hard science in favor of hypothesis (b).
To see what is wrong with that line of reasoning more concretely and without any baggage of emotional investments, recall the example of respirators -- respirator users have shorter lifespans than never-user, while ex-users of respirators fall in between. The statistical correlations here are of the same kind (and likely have higher RRs) as those between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases.
In both situations, the users, ex-users & never-users are self-selected subjects (or rather, selected by causes, known or unknown, that have not been shown to be randomly distributed in the population; with smoking we don't even know the causes of the self-selection into 3 types, let alone their distribution, or even less that these unknown causes are unlreated to the causes or etiology of LC, itself largely a mystery).
Using the logic of antismoking dogma, we could declare (selecting thus model (a)) -- respirators kill their users. I then challenge that claim using three pronged objection (translated to respirator case):
1) In randomized animal experiments, with respirators used on animals that have similar/analogous conditions to humans placed on respirators (e.g. damage to spine, brain,...) the respirators extend lifespan of the animals. These facts directly contradict model (a) (= respirators shorten lifespan of their users).
2) There are some well established benefits of respirators, such as bringing in the oxygen into the lungs of users, which is useful for those whose lungs don't do it well on their own. This supports model (b) for the correlations (= respirators are protective/therapeutic against the very factors which themselves cause shorter lifespans of their users)
3) Why are the anti-respirator advocates (who, as luck would have it, just happen to make a good buck by selling respirator alternatives, driven by the anti-respirator hysteria they themselves have whipped up) still stuck, sixty years later, pointing at thousand variants of the correlations known all along, between respirator use and shortened lifespan due to increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, asphyxiation,... among respirator users compared to never-users, in different populations, ethnicities, age groups, countires, urban and country residents, north and south, east and west,... On and on, for sixty years, while being very quiet about the facts (1) and (2) of hard science well established for decades, which make their whole song and dance about correlations passe by about fifty years?
Would it make sense to declare at this stage, sixty years later and with all the facts of hard science (1) & (2) well established, as you did for smoking: Well, until there is some new factor that correlates even better with the shortened lifespan of respirator users than the common fact that they 'used respirators', the explanation that respirators shorten the lifespan of their users remains the best one we have.
We already have the set of facts, the hard science facts (1) and (2), which have established repirator use as a form of (self-)medication and that explains the correlations of repsirator use and shorter lifespans. We have also falsified (a) (respirtators kill) in animal experiments.
We don't need "factors" when we already have facts. Factors are statistical hints of soft science, epidemiology, for the hard science, indicating possible promissing directions where to look for the facts. Once you already have the facts of hard science, there is no more need to argue which hint is the most promissing one. The hint phase is already behind us.
The above is quite close translation of my argument about smoking & smoking related diseases given in the earlier posts:
1) In animal experiments, even under the extremely unfavorable smoking conditions contrived for maximum harm, the smoking animals still live substantially longer. This contradicts hypothesis (a) - tobacco smoke not only doesn't prematurely kill its users via lung cancer, emphysema or any other 'smoking related' disease, but it substantially extends the lifespan of its users.
2) There are numerous well established beneficial effects of tobacco smoke on immune and nervous system (more refs here). Many of those, especially the anti-inflammatory effects and the near doubling of key internal antioxidants & detox enzymes, which are protective/therapeutic against the broad spectrum of toxic exposures, including to carcinogens, support hypothesis (b) self-medication model of correlations -- smoking is protective/therapeutic against the very exposures (and/or genetic sensitivities to them) that themselves cause the 'smoking related' diseases, which then shorten the lifespan of the smokers. The correlations of smoking and 'smoking related' diseases are thus due to the fact that, by virtue of its protective/therapeutic effects, smoking is a proxy for the exposures and genetic sensitivities, which in turn are the cause of those diseases and premature deaths.
3) Why is the antismoking "science" still stuck, sixty years and thousands of animal experiments later, in the hint phase by continuing to parrot the same correlations on self-selected subjects, while remaining very quiet about the long known facts of hard science (1) & (2) which invalidate its Truth (hypothesis (a)) from both ends. R. A. Fisher noticed this "peculiar" aspect of the antismoking "science" already in 1958:
But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind...
Paper: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/math...t/
fisher274.pdf
Amazingly, it is now fifty years later after the Fisher's observations, and the antismoking "science" is still stuck in that very same loop - parroting the thousand and one variants of the same kind of correlations on self-selected subjects. And by this time it is not because we lack hard science, but because the facts of hard science (1) and (2) outright contradict The Truth, the conjecture (a) and support the conjecture (b) - self-medication, as the model underlying the correlations between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases.
idlex
Lets hope these work
http://www.pricklytree.webhostin...ools/
index.html
http://biochimica.bio.uniroma1.i...it/
bauenbrf.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?
...hl=en#PPA519,M1
http://books.google.co.uk/books?
...hl=en#PPA520,M1
This thread has provided enough “food for thought” to cause my rapidly aging, smoke-addled brain to burst into flame from information overload.
It has been mentioned that, although tobacco has been used for centuries, lung cancer was relatively unknown until early in the 1900s. Many anti-smoker types point to the introduction of cigarette rolling machines and the ability to mass produce cigarettes as the cause.
But, there were other technological innovations which occurred during that same time frame. For example: the mass production and increasing use of the automobile, the concept of assembly line production, the escalating development and use of chemicals in the workplace and the home, etc.
Any adverse effects of these advances would be felt first and foremost by the working men and women in the manufacturing and related industries. These are the very people most likely to indulge in life’s simpler pleasures, like smoking cigarettes.
Is there any research indicating that any of these other fairly rapid advances in technological innovation paralleled the upsurge in lung cancer?
For example, smoking prevalence began increasing in the early 1900s, peaking sometimes in the 1960s. Lung cancer rates rose. But, at the same time smoking prevalence was increasing, industrial pollution was also increasing.
The sixties was a period of activism. A growing concern was environmental pollution. And while smoking prevalence was dropping, controls were being put in place to reduce environmental pollution and improve worker safety, including exposure to workplace carcinogens. Lung cancer rates have, arguably, dropped. Was it because of the decrease in smoking or improved workplace safety?
Lung cancer rates for women have risen. The rise is attributed to an increase in smoking prevalence among women which started in the sixties. But, that’s also the time frame when the ladies started burning their bras and taking on jobs normally reserved for men, thus exposing them to the same workplace hazards as men, including exposure to workplace carcinogens.
The question I’m asking is whether time trend studies have taken these other factors into consideration or whether they’ve concentrated solely on the correlation between smoking prevalence and lung cancer.
Abou epidemiology:
Dr. Dee and Mr. Diddly reported that there was an epidemic of ITF [invisible toe fungus] throughout the Land of Incognita! Three out of four people had this dangerous condition, they said, and most people didn’t know the proper shoes to wear to prevent it.
To address this crisis, they urged the government to immediately fund more screening and treatment for ITF and to enact laws that everyone wear sandals.
Believe it or not, an entire country has gotten taken in by a statistical trick just like this fictional story. Can you guess which one?
Answer tomorrow. - http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....-upon-
time.html
DaveK
"The names "niacin," "nicotinic acid," and "nicotinamide" are all derived from research studies on tobacco in the early 1930's. At that time, the first laboratory isolation of vitamin B3 occurred following work on the chemical nicotine that had been obtained from tobacco leaves."
"Components of the primary genetic material in our cells, called deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) require vitamin B3 for their production, and deficiency of vitamin B3 (like deficiency of other B-complex vitamins) has been directly linked to genetic (DNA) damage. The relationship between vitamin B3 and DNA damage appears to be particularly important in relationship to cancer and its prevention"
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.p...utrient&
dbid=83
Dave: animal studies...... animals do not always metabolize foreign substances the same as we do, this is why the fda requires human drug trials after animal safety studys.
I agree, for different diseases and therapies one needs the right animal model. Regarding carcinogens, though, my point is that for all the class 1 carcinogens, except for tobacco smoke, there is no problem in inducing cancers on target organs in lab animals. It is often much greater problem in finding solid enough epidemiological evidence for carcinogens shown to cause cancer in lab animals. Going the other way is much easier - all class 1 carcinogens, except TS, readily induce cancers in lab animals.
Even stranger is the fact that smoking animals, not only don't get prematurely killed by the lung cancers (or other 'smoking related' diseases), but with variety of species and smoke exposure levels, they live significantly longer than non-smoking animals. What kind of 'class 1 carcinogen' is that?
BTW the Syrian golden hampster, does , for some reason get LC from tobacco smoke, true, most other animals tested do not.
There are several other TS-LC animal models, e.g. F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice I cited earlier. Yes, they do get more cancers, tumors or pre-cancerous lesions in the lung, throat and bronchi. Yet they still live significantly longer than the non-smoking controls. If you check the discussion of the 2004 experiemnt on F344 rats (on mice here) and the references given there, you will see that this "mystery", which has plagued the attempts of antismoking "science" at finding support in hard science since 1950s, can be explained.
One "solution" they often use is to make sure that their evaluation endpoint never includes the full lifespan of the animals. They kill them early and then eyeball the lesions or measure activation levels of various "evil" genes in cherry-picked tissues. Another "solution" is to alternate between quit and relapse smoking cycles on smoking animals, which is worse for them than even never smoking at all, since each such cycle causes a very stressful biochemical and metabolic meltdown. What can poor "scientists" do, when it won't work any other way and the boss wants to see the right kind of "results".
First, as some authors hypothesized, cancer being the disease of old age, the smoking animals by living longer have longer time period in the old age to develop these cancers.
More interestingly, their total number of cancers & pre-cancerous lesions tends to be smaller than in non-smoking animals.
Namely, several synergistic beneficial vascular effects of tobacco smoke (nicotine upregulates vascular growth factor; CO: signaling molecule for improved oxygenation, NO: vasodilation & circulation) simply cause different distribution of the blood flows in the body, redirecting it in favor of tissues which are the most in contact with tobacco smoke and plasma nicotine (lungs, throat, brain, heart), at the expense mainly of the digestive system (which keeps animals thinner and, in conjunciton with some other mechanims, improves insuline sensitivity, protecting them from diabetes).
As result of such circulatory redistribution, the cancers induced by the spontaneous biochemical breakdown of the cellular repair mechanism due to the old age or to the bred-in genetic defects, grow the most in those tissues which have the best circulation.
Hence, tobacco smoke merely redistributes circulation patterns, which in turn redistributes patterns of cancer growth and spread. But, TS also exerts some additional protective effects (e.g. anti-inflammatory, higher anti-oxidants & detox enzymes), resulting often not only in fewer total cancers but in their lower toxicity (or higher tolerance to them), resulting in the net extension of the lifespan in smoking animals.
To avoid arguing useless semantic games around "harm", "cause", "carcinogen", "cancer" ... the core point is this -- you have a "substance X" which extends substantially the lifespan of its users, keeps them thinner, their brains sharper, makes them as a whole tougher and more resilient against variety of stresses and hardships... Whatever else you want to call "substance X", or whatever the IARC or EPA or FDA or mass media wish to classify it as, I call it "good for you."
Thanks Rose,
Trends in cigarette consumption cannot fully explain trends in British lung cancer rates
Peter N Lee, Barbara A Forey 1998
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...66&
blobtype=pdf
We conclude that factors other than cigarette smoking contribute substantially to lung cancer trends and should be investigated more fully
Various other candidates:
Common Gene Disorder Doubles Risk Of Lung Cancer, Even Among Nonsmokers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...80526171349.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...80402131137.htm
Cancer virus in sheep may provide clues to understanding human lung cancer
http://www.data-yard.net/28/lung.htm
HPV virus linked to lung cancer
http://veritasvincitprolibertate...es-lung-cancer/
A newly published study links the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, to lung cancer
Diesel smoke and lung cancer
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...ung_cancer.html
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes.
Government cover up of link between air pollution and lung cancer
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/
2002...gpollution.html
Radioactive fertiliser used on tobacco plants.
http://www.acsa2000.net/
HealthAl...ve_tobacco.html
Add the appearance of radioactive products on the 20th c. Until its dangers were recognised there were radium watches, radium soaps, etc. on general sale. Add also nuclear testing from 1945 until 1963 test ban treaty.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation.../SecretFallout/
http://www.nukewatch.com/Quarter...ng02/
sp022.html
Nuclear fallout deposition maps of US:
http://www.ieer.org/offdocs/index.html
US lung cancer distribution map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...istribution.gif
Radon and Radioactivity
http://www.radonseal.com/radon-
f...htm#antismoking
Sorry to butt into this most interesting conversation, however...
http://www.foxnews.com/
printer_f...,369828,00.html
Scottish City to Pay Smokers to Quit
Smokers in deprived communities of the Scottish city of Dundee will be offered cash to quit the habit as part of a new program coming in the fall.
Organizers working with the Scottish government say the $986,000 pilot program aims to help 900 of the city's 36,000 smokers to stop over the next two years.
Participants in the new initiative will be offered $25 per week credited onto an electronic card for a maximum of 12 weeks. They can redeem the money in their local supermarket for fresh food and groceries — but not alcohol and cigarettes.
Those taking part will receive nicotine replacement therapy through their local pharmacy, where they will have to do a weekly carbon monoxide breath test to prove they are smoke-free, and receive social support from the Dundee Healthy Living Initiative.
**sigh** A pilot program destined for great success I'm sure.
Nightlife;
"The focus must be exclusively on smokers and how to get the word to them "Smoking is good for you" as quickly as possible. All other ineffectve diversions need to be dropped immediately, such as assuring non-smokers on ETS, arguing with antismokers, trying to convince media or politicians, politicking or taking stand on global warming, religion,... or on anything else. The sole focus should be on how to educate as quickly as possible every smoker on the key fact of hard science about tobacco smoke: "Smoking is good for you." When that is achieved in good numbers, all other pieces will fall into their proper places automatically."
The message needs to be much simpler than that, it should be;
If you smoke you are not below the respect due an animal, demand respect.
If only 25% of a country's population smokes and they can convince even one person to stand with them you can assure more than half the politicians in that country will never be employable again.
The strategy could be very simple get as many websites going as possible with the meager numbers you have now and start a hall of shame for politicians demonstrating with their own words, their true level of respect for the large segment of communities who smoke, are over weight or disabled. Poke holes in the fear mongers plans for fast cash with UN armies,.7 of GNP or the big one, global warming. Some of these snake oil salespeople need to be held to account and it doesn't cost millions to take them to court, a person at a time. The resolution of one lawsuit could pay for ten. In Canada to sue a major bank it only costs 10,000.00 to get in front of a Judge, pick your greedy despot and pass the hat.
If politicians want to support bigotry and isolation make them eat their words in full view of the public. If a charity wants to promote fear for profits they should be seen for what they really are.
If the corporations parking taxes in huge charity foundations wish to use that cash to promote their profits, nationalizing the criminal charities and the seven trillion dollars they control, could end a larger portion of poverty and disease much faster than the snail's pace we have seen so far.
The UN needs to be revisited and our representatives elected, ending the 50 years of appointing political hacks to do the bidding of greedy political organizations, or the tin pot dictators of the world who all seek to rule by fear and coercions doing the bidding of the UN partnered Industries with the deepest pockets.
If you want to rally support you have to give people something they can believe in, the propaganda protectionists and political correctness crowd have seen their day and twilight is coming fast.
"If only 25% of a country's population smokes and they can convince even one person to stand with them you can assure more than half the politicians in that country will never be employable again."
Well, the African Americans in the US managed to do it while representing only 14% of the population - and against a much more historically entrenched idiology set against them at that. How did they manage to do this, exactly? A careful study of their tactics would seem to be helpful right about now.
How did they manage to do this, exactly?
Well, maybe when they started to come out with stuff like:
"Say it loud.
I'm black and proud."
How many longshoreman did it take, to start the Boston Tea party?
How did they manage to do this, exactly?
Well, maybe when they started to come out with stuff like:
"Say it loud.
I'm black and proud."
Yes, but before they said that they were poor, politically disorganized, disconnected as a group, and timid. Just like us.
What happened to change that?
What happened to change that?
They discovered self respect.
Not sure about the African American experience, Judy -- but I am often reminded of the term "consciousness raising" - as practiced by the feminist movement.
The immediate goal of consciousness raising (groups, discussions and so forth among women) wasn't to spread the word to society at large, but to acknowledge the bonds and shared issues among women, and to organize and consolidate the collective power.
Yes, it will be good to have others stand with us (and they will) -- but first, we must stand for ourselves. That first step, I think, is what has been taking place on this thread -- to discuss and recognize that smokers are engaged in a health promoting activity (and I suspect that many smokers know that at least intuitively), and that the science is supportive of this view.
What happened to change that?
They discovered self respect.
Indeed they did. But something, or someone, transformed them into a political force first. We research tobacco and its effects to the nth degree, why not this as well?
Smoking has been called many things, few can deny; first and foremost it is self medication.
In a world ruled by greed, if they take away even your right to make that call on your own, what have you got left but slavery.
Well, the African Americans in the US managed to do it while representing only 14% of the population - and against a much more historically entrenched idiology set against them at that. How did they manage to do this, exactly?
What makes the difference is that smokers are paralyzed by the guilt and fear from the toxic "death curse" ('smoking kills') injected into our minds by the antismoking witch doctors. Smoking is seen as a sin by most of us. Being black is not. Gays, which represent a much smaller (perhaps 2-3 percent) minority than even blacks, did not begin to fight, then win, until they were able to shake off the curse of sin under which they lived.
Nothing can stand in the way of the righteous men, with truth on their side, who have been wronged. Imagine fifty million, or couple billion worldwide, awakened and angry smokers, fully aware to their core that smoking is a perfectly healthy, wholesome habit, good for them and for those around, declaring in one voice "Enough!" That is a force that no politician and no corporation, no matter how big and mighty, would dare trample ever again. We, together with our families, with all our purchasing power, all our skills, all our work and all our votes, dwarf them all -- the cunning Big Pharma and the lordly FDA bureaucrats would feel like few specks of dust trying to stand to a hurricane. The whole antismoking scam, along with all the bans, fire safe cigarettes, denormalization, maligning... along with the obscene "sin" tax extortions, would be blown away and perish within the same election cycle.
Hence, our first and the most powerful enemy is our own ignorance which keeps us frozen under the spell of the antismoking con men. Once that first and main enemy is defeated, the spell will be broken, our chains will be shattered, and the rest that is needed will fall into its place, all by itself.
Therefore, the sole task of any smoker and any smoker organization that truly means us well, at this stage, must be to focus exclusively on awakening the rest of our fellow smokers, absolutely ignoring anyone and anything else, to the simple, fundamental truth "Smoking is good for you." That is all we need to do to win.
Whew... I wander off for a bit of festivaling and come back to find all sorts of merry heaven broken loose. LOL! Lots of amazingly interesting and valuable stuff in this thread and the massive June 12th thread (Dr. Siegel's "Hindenburg" replication...)
I'd like to add a few odd thoughts to the smoking/LC discussion, although I should fairly state that my predisposition is along the lines of reasoning already well-stated by Dave Kuneman. I did a fair amount of reading/thinking/challenging of the smoking/LC connection back in the early 1980s and finally grudgingly admitted that despite the lies about ETS, the science on primary smoking and LC seemed too solid for me to really have significant doubts about it. Still, I've been wrong before, and nightlight and Rose and others here have presented some pretty thought-provoking material.
Rose wrote, "I still have to side with the air pollution theories, which confusingly seems to have coincided with cigarettes.
Then again maybe the cigarette smoking is the symptom that points to the cause...."
And Dave wrote, "the possibilities are endless, but bottom line is when smoking goes down, eventually LC follows... No matter what role smoking plays, it most certainly plays some role, reducing that role in a population should reduce prevalance of LC, and it does."
And others have noted the fact that correlation does not necessarily mean causation (e.g. Lynda Farley's rooster seems to successfully make the sun rise every morning.)
OK... here's what I have to add:
1) I believe US urban air pollution has somewhat paralleled smoking's rise and fall so the overall LC trends could be accounted for by that perhaps as easily by the co-correlate trends in smoking.
2) Quite aside from air pollution, and focusing just on the possibility that smokers themselves have much greater incidences of LC, there ARE co-correlates that could arguably, or at least conceivably, account for it. Alcohol consumption is one, although I believe at least some studies have tried to correct for that without finding it to be very meaningful. But there are others, perhaps others no one has even thought of, and it's at least possible that some day THEY will be fingered as the culprits in the correlation.
What sorts of others? Here are two possible, though perhaps a bit fanciful ones: Mouth breathing and showers. Smokers may grow accustomed to inhaling air through their mouth more often than nonsmokers since most smokers open their mouth and inhale their "puffs" that way. It's quite possible that nasal inhalation plays a large role in protecting us from other air pollutants and that even a moderate switchover to mouth breathing could have a significant effect.
Another, and this one should be loved by the Antis, could be showers. There's quite a significant amount of asbestos fibers in many water systems. When I inquired about this ten or fifteen years ago I was told that the asbestos was pretty harmless because it was not usually implicated in stomach/intestinal cancers. BUT... ever take a shower and watch all those nice little droplets dancing in the air? Now if smoking REALLY "stinks" as bad as the Antismokers would like to have us believe, then it's quite possible that smokers (and even the spouses and co-workers of smokers) take more showers and thus breathe in more asbestos fibers.
Do I personally think that either of those two possibilities, nasal/mouth and showering, account for the smoking/LC link? No. But they DO show the possibility that the link COULD BE caused by co-correlates that have simply not been examined or not examined closely enough yet. And the obsessive focus on smoking may have covered up such causes and ended up hurting all of us.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
The immediate goal of consciousness raising (groups, discussions and so forth among women) wasn't to spread the word to society at large, but to acknowledge the bonds and shared issues among women, and to organize and consolidate the collective power.
I agree with you, GDF, that some of this consciousness raising is taking place here (and in other places), but to borrow some verbiage from earlier in this thread, why are we always stuck at the "hint" stage? Why does nothing stronger and more forceful ever follow from these collective meetings of the minds?
The consoldiation and collective, effective actions of the feminists was powered by something other than just grassroots sentiments. This "force" was polical in nature and also backed by those with a vested interest (benign or not). Same for African Americans I'd expect. I just don't think we'll get anywhere unless we learn how that part of the game is played.
Ya know Michael J., interesting though speculation may be, I don't feel at all compelled to find the answer, or answers, to the question of the causation of lung cancer. It is enough for me to know, from the evidence of biological science, that smoking is not the answer. I think we sometimes get de-railed by the provocation of "if not smoking, then what?"
I am also confident that there are lots of trends that parallel the rise and (perhaps) fall of LC (and equally confident that that rise and (perhaps) fall can be modeled in numerous ways -- depending on what is accounted for. And that ad hoc explanations can and will be presented for any curve that can possibly be produced.
These tools simply cannot answer that question.
It is enough for me to know, from the evidence of biological science, that smoking is not the answer. I think we sometimes get de-railed by the provocation of "if not smoking, then what?"--
Agree with you 100%.
Obviously, it's just the bread. An oldie but a goodie:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/45...rette_vs_bread/
I agree with Judy's remark "This "force" was political in nature and also backed by those with a vested interest (benign or not).". If our elected officials were held accountable by the people they represent, they would think twice about imposing a $1.00 per pack tax. While this does little for ballot initiatives, when dealing with a representative, they have to walk a tightrope. Remember, there are anti-smokers, non-smokers, and smokers, and the anti-smokers are the real minority, while the non-smokers are not likely to be strongly swayed by a politicians stance on tobacco, the other two groups have a vested interest, and since they are typically diametrically opposed, it is important to be viewed as the stronger of the voting bloc.
Smokers need to extract revenge in the voting booth, and put the fear of alienating a quarter of the population to the pols heart. Smokers rights groups should be publishing voting summaries and educating the smoking population who represents their interests, and who preys on them.
Until SRG's take this to heart, and start holding these politicians to some sunshine, they pols will never take smokers as a political threat, and smokers will never have any political representation.
Judy;
For starters what do you suppose would happen, if I went to the First Nations people and asked for an information pamphlet, be placed in every bag of cigarettes they sold.
Asking smokers to join the smoking tax boycott supporting the reserve brands. Asking them to go to a website and join the thousands of smokers who already know thew truth, Smoking is self medication and your right to use as a legal product. With many benifits for those who choose to smoke. not the least of which would be thousands of dollars not paid to the drug dealers in lab coats, in dealing with a multitude of physical ailments smoking is known to cure at a fraction of the cost.
They are being treated as Hitlers Jews, utilizing the same slogans the same rhetoric and the same so called "science" to create a subclass of people who's personal property and dignity are being stolen, under the guise of punishing an addiction. All in order to force compliance, in decisions only you have a right to make.
The right to decide, allows abortion but out of the other side of their face, doesn't allow you to be considered a normal human being.
If you leave a dog tied up in your yard without shelter you can be considered a criminal. Offer shelter to a smoker and you are also committing a criminal act.
What does that really say about governments view of smokers and who is really being protected but "a bigots right to choose" how you should live your life.
If the largest corporations on the planet can be trusted to self regulate their industries, why too are we as individuals not allowed that same trust, in respect to managing our own bodies, over which by international law we are told we are guaranteed personal autonomy.
Why would anyone declare rape is a crime, while stating anti smokers are righteous and worthy of accolades while parroting the words and actions of Adolph Hitler? Who was the first to complain about second hand smoke.
Too many of our heroes died to preserve your rights to decide. Now their comrades stand out in the cold isolated for the crime of having a cigarette? ENOUGH...
Therefore, the sole task of any smoker and any smoker organization that truly means us well, at this stage, must be to focus exclusively on awakening the rest of our fellow smokers, absolutely ignoring anyone and anything else, to the simple, fundamental truth "Smoking is good for you." That is all we need to do to win. - nightlight
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not sure it's that easy.
I've only been thinking seriously about the smoking issue for the past 4 years, and one thing I've realised is that 60 years of unrelenting antismoking messages really has conditioned people - myself included - to regard smoking in a pretty negative way.
I personally realised this when - after it became pretty obvious that ETS didn't pose any real threat to anyone (most of the research says so), and that antismokers were perpetrating a hoax, and had lost all credibility - I started wondering whether the far older claim, more or less established as a Fact Of Life - that smoking causes lung cancer - was also a hoax. But it felt like wondering whether my mom and pop were my real parents. I'd never questioned it before. It had never occurred to me that it might be untrue. Or, worse, that it might be a lie. Told by that most trusted of professions - doctors.
I've now looked at Doll and Hill 1950 and 1954, and I'm not impressed. There are all sorts of charges that can be, and have been, laid against them. I have my own (it seriously bothers me that 98% of the sample were smokers in the 1950 study, and 87% of the doctors were smokers in the second study whose first paper was published in 1954). It bothers me that the sceptics (who included Sir Ronald Fisher) have been written out of history. My position now is that smokers do seem to be at greater risk of lung cancer, but it's not a very great absolute risk. About 10% of smokers can expect to die of lung cancer. From the antismoking message received, you'd think it was every last one of them.
Do I think that smoking is good for me? What is "good"? Last week I really enjoyed smoking the cigar I got from Boris Johnson. Rose has recently persuaded me that I'm getting my niacin/vitamin B3 from smoking (this is wholly new). I guess I haven't quite got my head round this latest heresy - that smoking might actually be good for me -. It simply hasn't been processed in my very slow, snail-like mind.
To ask people to believe the complete opposite of what they believed yesterday is to ask one hell of a lot of them. Too much, I think. Most people simply can't take corners that fast.
Instead, let me propose that smokers start telling other smokers not that smoking is good for them, but that antismoker claims about the ETS/SHS threat are a hoax. Why ask people - and in this case already damaged and wounded people - to make a great leap of faith to believe that smoking is good for them, when they can be asked to make a far smaller and easier first step - that it's not quite that bad?
Very interesting discussion indeed.
This comes from the CDC and was posted at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews...03/
hlsb1203.htm but for some unknown reason was taken down since and is now only available to members.
Now looking at this chart of lung cancer prevalence (and other illnesses including coronary disease that has a higher prevalence in non-smokers that I also posted here) and considering that a former smoker according to the CDC is anyone that has smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, what does this tell us ?
a) that stopping smoking causes cancer -- one study that I can't find right now by two Indian researchers claims that the shock that quitting smoking causes to one's lungs can bring on lung cancer
b)that there were more people smoking in the past and LC is now catching up to them ?
c) that considering their definition of former smokers -- 100 cigarettes or more in one's lifetime, or current smokers -- anyone that has smoked more than 100 cigarettes and is still smoking -- we really can't draw any conclusions from this chart as they don,t segregate between light and heavy current and former smokers ?
d)that both smokers and non-smokers have equal risks to get LC ?
Would anyone like to extrapollate on this ?
Current Former Never
Lung 20.9% 61.2% 17.9%
Coronary heart disease
29.3% 31.8% 38.9%
Stroke 30.1% 23.0% 47.0%
For starters what do you suppose would happen, if I went to the First Nations people and asked for an information pamphlet, be placed in every bag of cigarettes they sold.
Asking smokers to join the smoking tax boycott supporting the reserve brands. Asking them to go to a website and join the thousands of smokers who already know thew truth, Smoking is self medication and your right to use as a legal product. With many benifits for those who choose to smoke. not the least of which would be thousands of dollars not paid to the drug dealers in lab coats, in dealing with a multitude of physical ailments smoking is known to cure at a fraction of the cost.==
Anon, I think this is a great idea. You are preaching to the chior when you address this comment to me. The real question is, are you available for a roadtrip next weekend to go do exactly what you've just described on the nearest Indian reservation to both of us? I certainly am.
I agree that smoking is self-medicating, in the same way that I think eating, sleeping, exercising, surfing the web, falling in love, going to that "special place" in my mind during meditation and a thousand other things are self-medicating. But WHY I do any of these things doesn't matter. I owe no one an explanation for that. That some ephemeral, unelected "they" seems confident that they can stop me from doing ANYTHING that's perfectly legal and none of their business is the problem that needs to be addressed right now.
What we face now is fascism. I'm eager to learn how to defeat it.
idlex wrote:
"To ask people to believe the complete opposite of what they believed yesterday is to ask one hell of a lot of them. Too much, I think. Most people simply can't take corners that fast."
Just this morning I was talking to an very occasional smoker who asked "Well, why have I been told all my life that smoking is bad?" I answered -- "I dunno -- why were you told that we were going in to get those WMD's?"
He laughed and lit a cigarette. I think he took that corner pretty fast.
Here's the Indian study I was talking about.
http://www.data-yard.net/
science...top_smoking.pdf
Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?
Excerpt:
It is our premise that a surge and spurt in
re-activation of bodily healing and repair mechanisms
of chronic smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia
is induced and spurred by an abrupt
discontinuation of habit, goes awry, triggering
uncontrolled cell division and tumor genesis. In
normal tissue healing, anabolic and catabolic
processes achieve equilibrium approximately 6
8 weeks after the original insult. When an imbalance
occurs between these phases occur in the
healing process, disruptions in repair limitations
occur leading to tumor genesis this sequence is
best exemplified in the formation of keloids from
scars [1].
IRO;
THE MESSAGE SMOKERS AND EVERYONE ELSE GETS, IS SMOKERS ARE OUT NUMBERED FOUR TO ONE.
Another convenient lie. As I pointed out smokers could form a majority political influence, just by standing up and objecting.
Society will no longer accept them? In reality the anti smoking crowd is minuscule compared to the overwhelming majority, of non smokers who are actually much more tolerant, than the fascists are making all of us believe.
Talk to people around you, and form your reality in what you actually see, not in the paid news reports, and you start to understand; we as smokers still have a lot more power and influence on the high road than the vastly outnumbered bigots will ever enjoy.
The phrase you have nothing to fear but fear itself was not a reference to German military might, it referred to the propaganda they used to full advantage, in promoting hollow fears.
Just as "smoker" was made into a dirty word It can be rejected just as easily by accepting your own self worth and dignity. It is only a dirty word if you accept it as such. Public Health could also be associated with Nazis, if we simply use the term, at every opportunity.
Who gains and who looses credibility by that simple act? If people are made to look at Nazi actions in the history books; the term could not be denied.
Judy,
I never DID trust that bread...
Judy,
I never DID trust that bread...
GDF | 06.22.08 - 12:19 am | #
== LOL, I know.
If loving bread is wrong...
I don't want to be right.
sigh...it's getting late, huh?
Judy;
"are you available for a road trip next weekend to go do exactly what you've just described on the nearest Indian reservation to both of us? I certainly am."
I have already been discussing it on and off, for over a year now. [Wink]
OUR FAVORITE MAYOR, GRIM REAPER’S NEMESIS & NURSING HOMES' FRIEND:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/
n...080620_2973.php
Bloomberg: “Let me look at some numbers, things I'm particularly proud of: Life expectancy in New York City is now greater than in the country as a whole.... We've reduced teenage smoking by 52 percent [and] total smoking by 20 percent; we're going to save 100,000 premature deaths because of that.”
.
"we're going to save 100,000 premature deaths because of that."
Anyone ask him for a list of names, so the "saved" can send him a card or something, to express their gratitude for his gift of immortality.
We used to think only vampires had such an ability, I guess we can consider one blood sucker is as good as another.
"Therefore, the sole task of any smoker and any smoker organization that truly means us well, at this stage, must be to focus exclusively on awakening the rest of our fellow smokers, absolutely ignoring anyone and anything else, to the simple, fundamental truth 'Smoking is good for you.' That is all we need to do to win."
I hate to be a party pooper, but: Good grief!
.
Michael: co-correlates... What sorts of others? Here are two possible, though perhaps a bit fanciful ones...
There is a co-correlate, which is much simpler, yet far more powerful in all its facets -- it is the spontaneous self-medication.
Tobacco has been viewed and revered for thousands of years as a potent medicinal plant. Only in recent decades, a body of research about tobacco smoke has emerged, the real, hard science at the molecular and biochemical level, conducted, very quietly, by the pharmaceutical industry seeking to replicate with its own synthetic compounds at least some among seemingly endless series of surprising, therapeutic biochemical marvels hiding in this miracle medicine (more refs in this nootropics forum thread). The ancient shamans and medicine men were quite right -- tobacco plant is the most precious gift of the gods to humans.
The basic self-medication pattern which statistically ties tobacco smoking with 'smoking related' diseases can be illustrated via the beneficial effect of TS on our internal antioxidants and detox enzymes. In particular, tobacco smoking increases (via the immune system 'exercise effect' of TS) the levels of glutathione (by ~80%), catalase and superoxide dismutase/SOD (nearly doubling each). Combined, these three (which includes their sub-variants) ubiquitous enzymes are responsible for neutralizing and excreting virtually any environmental toxin (heavy metals, along with myriads of organic and inorganic toxins) or carcinogen we are exposed to. The levels of these enzymes also vary from person to person, due to genetic differences and as result of each person's lifelong history of exposures getting imprinted into their biochemical networks.
Persons who are naturally low in these enzymes would have lower detox rates, thus they would be more sensitive to such toxic exposures. Consider now a person at a job where he is is routinely exposed to some of these toxins. Smoking, by nearly doubling the detox enzymes, would double detox rates, hence provide immediate and niticable relief to the worker.
For example in a 1999 study ( http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/
fo...6281#7961046281 ) of German aluminum industry workers, among the potroom workers (this is the most exposed group to the toxic aluminum dusts and vapors), the smokers had sixfold reduction in respiratory problems compared to never-smokers, and the (emphysema like) lung damage was observed only in non-smokers (never-smokers and ex-smokers).
Obviously the doubling of detox rates as result of smoking was providing noticable relief against the hardship of this environment. Hence, anyone working in such environment would easily sense the benefits of smoking and would continue smoking despite social and economic pressures against it. Or, in older times, before the antismoking hysteria, they would simply be instinctively drawn to smoking more than someone working in a less harsh environment. At the same time, the years of exposure to aluminum dusts and any other noxious chemicals in such environment, would eventually damage worker's health, despite the protective effects of smoking. Hence, the diseases caused by aluminum & other toxic exposures at this job would end up being statistically associated with smoking, even though smoking was protective here.
Further, workers who are naturally more sensitive to the exposures at that job (e.g. because of their slower detox), would be even more drawn to smoking, since they would perceive even greater relief, thus they would end up smoking at higher rates and more than naturally hardier ones. Simultaneously, they would be the ones the most harmed due to their naturally slower detox. This would statistically tie smoking to the diseases caused by the industrial toxins here, in proper dose-response relation.
Hence, among these aluminum potroom workers who are generally uniformly exposed to the workplace toxins, smoking is simply a marker for higher natural sensitivity to these toxins. Those who are naturally fast detoxers, would smoke less since the minor additional relief smoking provides would be less noticable for them.
With the above observations, consider the effect of antismoking pressures (economic, social). In this potroom, the smokers being pressured to quit would belong disproportionately to those "marked" by smoking, hence the slowest detoxers, the most sensitive ones. Once they quit, they would be much worse off, worse even then never-smokers (who would be disproportionately the naturally tougher ones). Indeed that is precisely what was observed in this study -- the ex-smokers had elevenfold increase in respiratory problems compared to smokers. Poor, naive folks.
The ex-smoker case above illustrates also depth of the antismoking evil -- it is almost like someone going into hospital and ripping out the respirators from the patients, because "science" has shown that those "evil respitrators kill" their users (since the use of respirators is statistically associated with reduced lifespans), and then as the poor wretches squirm and gasp, explaining to an alarmed reporter, nah, that's just their respirator addiction, it's their fault anyway, he'll get over it after he takes some of the latest respirator cessation pills. And, as unfortunate patient dies right there, the anti-respirator dogooder sighs with a look of Bambi waiting for mommy, then explains to the reporter -- see, we came a bit too late and that evil tube the poor addict was sucking so desperately has killed him despite our help. How sad, it brings tears to my eyes.
{ The little picturesque analogy above, was actually inspired by R. A. Fisher's 1958 paper "Cigarettes, Cancer and Statistics" where he comments about the antismoking pressures he is anticipating way back then (page 163):
And to take the poor chap's cigarette away from him would be rather like taking away his white stick from a blind man. It would make an already unhappy person a little more unhappy than he need be.
(pdf) http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/math...t/
fisher274.pdf
Other papers by R. A. Fisher on smoking: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/math...tat/
smoking.htm
}
I am as yet not entirely convinced of long term benefits, but I have to say that since I started looking at it all for myself, the research is not going in the directions I first expected.
You see, I trusted the scientists to do their job, but when it got to passive smoking, that was too much.
Tobacco Smoke May Act as Antidepressant Drug
"Chronic smokers have biological changes in the brain similar to those caused by antidepressant drugs, according to a study gaining national attention".
"The investigators said the biological changes probably are not caused by the nicotine in tobacco alone, if at all. It appears that a compound produced when tobacco burns causes the changes in the brain; that compound probably includes a nitrate, they said."
( try nicotinic acid )
"The study found that the brains of chronic smokers had neurochemical abnormalities in the locus coeruleus that can be produced by repeatedly treating laboratory animals with antidepressant drugs, he explained"
The locus ceruleus is studied in relation to clinical depression, panic disorder, and anxiety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Loc...Locus_coeruleus
Wouldn't that be flight or fight?
"IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise"
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm
...you are probably just sitting down calmly with a cigarette and a cup of coffee to consider the problem at hand.
Just like to express my appreciation to all the contributors to this lively and thought provoking thread.
Although some regular contributors are noticeable by their silence, Doc, Bill G, don't be shy, join in and speak up, I would really like to hear your views, opinions.
Welcome "nightlight" and welcome back GDF, missed ya.
GreatScot
Progress report for the Doctor
UK beer sales tumble to the lowest since 1975
"UK beer sales have fallen through the five billion litre mark for the first time since 1975 as the consumer downturn and smoking ban continue to hit Britain's pubs and brewers"
"The effect of the decline in consumption, combined with rising utility and commodity costs, an increase in beer duty, and the impact of the consumer downturn and smoking ban is having a catastrophic impact on Britain's pubs".
"Pub closures are running at 27 a week, according to the BBPA, amounting to some 1,200 that have been forced out of business over the last 12 months".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money...2/
cnbeer122.xml
"When you have lost your inns, drown your empty selves,
for you will have lost the last of England."
here is another success for the anti-smoker industry. The more people that are negatively affected by the zealots the nearer their demise. let's never forget the true victims.
Barred from smoking in own home
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/l...86081-21109057/
ANGRY relatives of an elderly care home resident have criticised a decision to ban her from smoking indoors.
Mrs Bellwood said: “To make an infirm, almost blind and confused 89-year-old huddle outdoors in all weathers, just to indulge in her one last pleasure, is outrageous.
“God knows what will become of her and who will be responsible if she gets pneumonia.
“She will probably be found wandering around Primrose Hill as I know she will be unable to find her way back inside.
“We are sickened by this ruling and if we could we would take her to our homes but we just do not have the facilities or care to keep her happy and safe.
“We feel they are bullying vulnerable people who are unable to voice their opinions anymore.”
Are you proud Doc?
GreatScot
Nightlight, you've posted some excellent material here, but I'm not sure you're interpreting the aluminum potroom study correctly.
Here's the Results section (with some highlighting by you that may or may not carry over):
====
RESULTS: Smokers in the potroom group had a lower prevalence of
respiratory symptoms than never smokers or ex-smokers, which was
significant for wheezing (2.6% v 17.4% and 28.6% respectively, both p <
0.01), whereas respiratory symptoms in controls tended to be highest in
smokers (NS). No effects of potroom work on the prevalence of
respiratory symptoms could be detected. In potroom workers, impairment
of lung function due to occupational exposure was found only in
non-smokers, with lower results for forced vital capacity (FVC) (98.8%
predicted), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (96.1%
predicted) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) (80.2% predicted) compared
with controls (114.2, 109.9, and 105.9% predicted; each p < 0.001).
Conversely, effects of smoking on lung function were only detectable in
non-exposed controls (current smokers v non-smokers: FVC 98.8% v 114.2%
predicted; p < 0.01; FEV1 95.5 v 109.9% predicted; p < 0.05).
====
While it's true that the "potroom effect" was only observed in the non & ex smokers, the final figures for nonpotroom workers seem to show fairly strong effects for smoking itself if those last figures are actually comparing non-exposed non-smokers to non-exposed smokers.
The wording of the results appears a bit cloudy though, and we've seen instances before where abstracts and results and such things will sometimes distort the actual study findings (e.g. the WHO's study finding 22% *less* lung cancer among those exposed to smoke in childhood being passed off in the abstract as "no association" despite being just about the ONLY significant finding of the entire study.)
Do you have the full study text? Unfortunately, since folks like us don't get that fresh-smelling nicely-government-laundered Big Tobacco money that the Antismokers get it's not so easy to just download full text.
Please send it to me at Cantiloper on aol if you do. Thanks!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/130.html
idlx: To ask people to believe the complete opposite of what they believed yesterday is to ask one hell of a lot of them. Too much, I think. Most people simply can't take corners that fast.
Just going out and telling smokers "smoking is good for you" without much behind it would make you look like a lunatic.
Few posts back, I described an interesting incident, involving a well educated, intelligent non-smoker, an engineer/manager in his early 50s, a health & fitness nut, who started preaching to me at a party the usual antismoking agitprop. As a token of my gratitude for his concerns, I educated him a bit on the facts of hard science, which he checked for himself, and few days later this non-smoker and a health nut, who was advising me to quit, started smoking himself! For his health.
Within the last couple years, this, to me, truly amazing phenomenon in our zeitgeist, happened to abut half a dozen former non-smokers, mainly the health obsessed folks (ages 20s-60s, men & women), well educated (college or up), who used to feel good advising smokers to quit, before their lucky day. I never told any of them explicitly to start smoking, but only told them scientific facts I was aware of, along with the links so they can check it out. Of course, many more busy bodies didn't start smoking after their "lucky day," but each one was cured permanently from wrinkling their noses and preaching to smokers.
Naturally, in the same period, I talked to many more smokers, and response was quite positive. The truth usually resonated with some deeper chords, beyond the conscious mind, in the inner sanctum where reality, truth and joy haven't been desecrated by the antismoking toxins. At least couple of them have even started their own web sites on the theme "Smoking is good for you" (another one here).
The key for the suggested strategy to work is to have a well organized, very active (with a 'heartbeat' of a minute or two between the new items, or faster) and information rich web site, with all the info explained at multiple levels, so that anyone with any background will easily find it explained within their own conceptual framework.
We would also want take full advantage of the antismoking oppression, which is herding us into the streets, to huddle together in the rain and snow to have a cigarette. Nothing builds fellowship like a shared hardship. Chatting a bit with a light-hearted, casual mention of this perspective, then handing your current smoking buddy a well crafted leaflet, pointing to the web site for more info, could spread the word like a wild-fire. For example, if each awakened smoker awakens just two others and asks each to do the same, 27 steps later, or easily within a year, 50 million American smokers would be outside of the antismoking Matrix.
Some more sketches on specific steps and phases of the strategy implementation were described in few posts on another forum:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/
fo...4571#5031094571
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/
fo...6391#4761096391
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/
fo...5891#2051065891
nightlight
I must confess that I have a 10 minute lecture of the important points in my head for such eventualities, you should see them grin, its like you are telling them something they instinctively knew.
A new "study"showing nothing, no mechanism identified, no plausibility but the usual typical headline.
Smoking's hidden death toll revealed
http://
scotlandonsunday.scotsman...aled.4210640.jp
Excerpt
A study, led by experts in Glasgow, showed heightened chances of dying from cancers of the colon, rectum and prostate, as well as from lymphatic leukaemia.
Scotland's health minister and anti-smoking campaigners have welcomed the study as further proof of the need to clamp down on the habit.
Dr David Batty, of the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, based at the University of Glasgow, said: "What this study shows is that smoking is linked to more kinds of cancer than previously thought. It's important to remember that cancer is not a single disease and that the various kinds of cancers are different illnesses so you couldn't necessarily assume that smoking was linked to them in the same way. What's unclear is how exactly smoking causes these cancers."
Is this a classic example of the "science" described above by nighlight?
I guess it truly will not be long before they prove my athletes foot and ingrown toenail are caused by smoking.
GreatScot
I too have been enjoying the conversations taking place here. Lots of interesting views and suggestions. Nightlight certainly brings some refreshing views. I was wondering though if he could tell us his occupation. Most of what he writes sounds like "hard evidence" that some never wanted to see printed.
Michael: Do you have the full study text?
I have just put it here (pdf) so anyone here can fetch it.
... the final figures for nonpotroom workers seem to show fairly strong effects for smoking itself ....
Yes, that's in fact the other side of the "spontaneous self-medication" model for the correlations of smoking with 'smoking related' diseases (discussed with Dave K, labeled as model (b) above). The potroom workers represent the maximum exposure sample, with uniformly well controlled exposure (all pegged at common maximum).
The only parameter not controlled or measured here were the inherent sensitivities (genetic and biochemical/epigenetic) to the toxins, which I conjectured from the correlations & smoking status and that aspect also agreed with the self-medication model.
In this kind of sample, where at least one important (for the self-medication model) parameter, the toxic exposure, is (accidentally) controlled for and kept fixed between the subjects, the smoking effects come through cleanly as the self-medication model predicts -- smokers are protected (by their doubled detox rates) and are therefore much better off than the never-smokers or ex-smokers.
Their "controls" represent the other kind of extreme -- all other workers (watchmen, craftsmen, office workers, laboratory employees) where exposure to the industrial toxins is much lower and varies broadly between the subjects in an unspecifed and uncontrolled (by the researchers) manner.
It is precisely in this type of heavily confounded samples, in which the key confounding parameter (toxic exposure level), which is highly relevant for the self-medication model, is completely ignored by the researchers (since they obviously don't allow or consider the posibility of protective effect of tobacco smoke against toxic exposure), that the usual antismoking kind of positive correlations between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases arise.
{-- Digression: Note that even though they actually observed the protective effect of smoking in the potroom sample, in a typical antismoking junk-science fashion, they weasel worded this fact in their abstract as "no [negative] effect" of smoking was found, where they left out attribute "negative". In fact they found positive effect of smoking, but that is a taboo in this kind of "science" so they did what they had to do.
The crowning bias comes in the text itself, where, while acknowledging apparent protective effect of smoking, they label it as "healthy smoker effect", meaning they arbitarily "attribute" (=handwave) the observed protective effect of smoking to the inherent greater toughness of these and only these workers, which not only simultaneously overrides both, the toxicity of the potroom vapors/dusts and the mandatory toxicity of tobacco smoke, but on top of all that this mythical toughness of "healthy smoker" supermen somehow reduces their respiratory problems much farther, to one sixth of the problems of never-smokers. Amazing to what lengths these "scientists" will go to fit by hook or by crook the observations into the dogma. It's all very typical for this kind of "science". -- }
Now, back to the non-potroom controls. In the 'self-medication' model the mechanism behind observed positive correlations of smoking and respiratory problems goes as follows -- Since all these subjects are self-selected smokers, never-smokers or ex-smokers, we ask what causes such self-selection, taking into account the well established beneficial immune effects of smoking and the antismoking pressures?
We know that doubling of internal detox enzymes by tobacco smoke will double the detox rates in smokers. Those who self-select themselves into the oppressed smoker category will be those who can percive the greatest benefit from such improved detox. Hence these must be workers who are exposed to more toxins than their unaided immune system could handle, in order for them to perceive benefits from the doubled detox rates. I'll call these "immune overloaded" workers.
In contrast to the "immune overloaded" group, those not routinely exposed beyond their natural defenses, call them "immune under-loaded" workers, would perceive little or no benefit from additional detox capacity provided by smoking, thus under the omnipresent antismoking pressures, these workers would be more biased to self-select themselves into the non-smoker (never- or ex-smoker) category.
In short, the "immune overloaded" group will smoke at higher rates than the "immune underloaded" group. Additional support for this conclusion is the fact that 51% of the potroom workers (higher exposure, more overladed) smoked, while only 38% of non-potroom workers (lower exposure, fewer overloaded) smoked.
But this same toxic exposures which caused their "immune overload", which caused their smoking, will also cause damage over time, since the immune boost from tobacco smoke will likely not protect them against 100% of toxins, 100% of the time.
A simple analogy for this mechanism would be the use of sunglasses and incidence of sunburns. Users of sunglasses will have more sunburns than never-users, while former-users will fall in between. The use of sunglasses, by virtue of their protection of eyes against sunlight, is a proxy measure for the level of exposure to the sunlight, kind of a crude thermometer -- the more one uses them, the more one must be exposed to sunlight. Hence their use will positively correlate with sunburns caused by the sunlight (which also caused the greater use of sunglasses).
In light of the self-medication model of positive correlations, let me comment on the terminology you used:
the final figures for nonpotroom workers seem to show fairly strong effects for smoking itself
By identifying above the observed higher rate of respiratory problems in [self-selected] smokers [under the uncontrolled exposure+sensitivity parameter values] as "effects of smoking" you are automatically attributing causality here to tobacco smoke for that damage.
Notice now the [left out aspects], and ask whether a worker's self-selection into the smoker/nonsmoker category might have any connection with his toxic exposures at work, while recalling the immune & detox effects of tobacco smoking? The strong confounding between self-selection into smoking category and toxic exposure+sensitivity becomes obvious, implying the explanation of positive correlations as the effects of self-medication by smoking, rather than as the "effects of smoking".
Hence, when all facts are taken into account, including the hard science facts about immune & detox effects of tobacco smoke, the most plausible mechanism behind the positive correlation is self-medication.
The additional meta-fact that the authors chose to simultaneously and completely ignore:
(i) the hard scientific facts about immune effects of TS (which they ought to know in their profession), and
(ii) to measure/account for different exposure levels among these non-potroom workers (even just crudely, via proximity to the potroom),
shows that here, we are not even dealing with an honest form of the 'soft science' of epidemiology, which recognizes and acknowledges its limitations. Rather, this is a transparent junk-science, clumsily struggling to cover the tracks of its cheap sleights of hand, meant merely for further whipping of the antismoking hysteria.
The only worthy aspect of the paper is that it collects in one place all the main facets of antismoking fraud, including the weasel-wording around the clear evidence of protective effects of smoking in their own data.
Oops, the link I gave above to the cached pdf file of the German aluminum workers study came out mangled. Click here to download the file.
From Nightlife's link above;
"The Smokers Club has a very useful list showing clearly how the anti-smoking swindlers work, especially what is behind them."
Unfortunately there are many versions of how they work. I believe the most realistic description of Public health Asceticism cult activities can be found here;
http://libertyed.org/noforce/200...ion-
racket.html
"No Force, No Fraud
If humans are to ever learn to live together peacefully and productively, we must share a guideline basis that allows each of us liberty that is not taken at the expense of others. The essence of that basis can be expressed simply as non-initiation of force or fraud - or - No Force, No Fraud."
The Protection Racket
"If you're a fan of old gangster movies, that phrase should evoke clear images of mobsters making their weekly rounds of stores in their "territory", extorting cash payments in return for not being beat up, blown up, or burned out.
To be fair, the "protectors" did actually provide some protection... not just from themselves, but from other thieves. The "protectors" were a sort of local police force. They wanted a monopoly on crime in their territory, and the mobsters wanted to protect their sources of protection money. Freelance crooks were not allowed... they either worked for the resident gangster group or they were "eliminated."
Thank you GreatScot -- I couldn't resist this discussion.
Your post of that news article above (the data dredge linking smoking to everything short of ingrown toenails) illustrates a couple of things...
"Scotland's health minister and anti-smoking campaigners have welcomed the study as further proof of the need to clamp down on the habit."
That sentence leaves me almost speechless. It reads to me like they want smoking to be bad in order to justify the oppression they already want to put in place. Somehow, I would think (okay, not really) that public health establishment would be relieved if a practice was NOT as bad as they thought, and saddened if it was worse. But no, they "welcome" this study of further proof of (supposed) harm...? Oh -- what a world...
and further...
"Neil Rafferty, spokesman for the smokers' lobby group the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, said: "We are not suggesting the smoking is anything other than bad for you. People enjoy it, but they know that it's not good for them and they take the choice. No doubt the anti-smoking lobby will want to use this to erode our freedoms still further. At the end of the day, we are adults. Let us get on with our lives."
Perhaps a better statement from FOREST would have been: "This data dredge is meaningless BS propaganda", rather than to lend weight to this stuff by letting it stand.
I also like (in the first paragraph) "dramatic scientific research has revealed". Makes me laugh. Give them an OSCAR and let's move on.
Or perhaps Mr. Rafferty might have said "Hmm.. that's funny -- because we have a boatload of evidence that indicates that smoking tobacco is good for you. Anyone who is interested should go to www..."
Tobacco Is Good For You, so maybe the filter is NOT good for you:
What are cigarettes and filters made of?
Cigarettes are made from four components, each of which is describe below.
1. Filters
2. Tobacco
3. Additives
4. Cigarette wrapper
Cigarettes today are typically 85 or 100 mm long, and have diameters of about 8 mm. Their filters are usually 20 to 30 mm long, so a typical cigarette has 55 to 80 mm of tobacco.
1. Filters:
Cigarette filters are specifically designed to absorb vapors and to accumulate particulate smoke components. Filters also prevent tobacco from entering a smoker's mouth and provide a mouthpiece that will not collapse as the cigarette is smoked. Filters generally have the following components:
A "plug" of acetate cellulose filter tow
95% of cigarette filters are made of cellulose acetate (a plastic), and the balance are made from papers and rayon. The cellulose acetate tow fibers are thinner than sewing thread, white, and packed tightly together to create a filter; they can look like cotton. Other materials have been tried and rejected in favor of the taste that acetate produces. Filters vary in filtration efficiency, depending on whether the cigarette is to be "light" or regular.
How many fibers are in a cigarette filter?
The following is quoted from a research paper by researchers from the New York State Department of Health, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, and Cornell University.
Click here for full article.
"Viewing the white face of the cigarette filter with the naked eye and compression of the filter column with the fingers would suggest that the filter is made of a sponge-like material. However, opening the cigarette filter, by cutting it lengthwise with a razor, reveals that it consists of a fibrous mass. Spreading apart the matrix reveals some of the more than 12 000 white fibers. Microscopically, these fibers are Y shaped and contain the delustrant titanium dioxide. The fibers are made of cellulose acetate, a synthetic plastic-like substance used commonly for photographic films. A plasticiser, triacetin (glycerol triacetate), is applied to bond the fibers."
An inner paper wrapper (plug wrap) and glue
The paper used to wrap the acetate cellulose plug is impervious to air for regular cigarettes, or is ventilated and very porous in "light" cigarettes, allowing more air to enter the smoke mix. A polyvinyl acetate emulsion is used as the glue to attach the plug to the wrapper, and to seam the wrapper.
An outer paper (tipping paper)
The tipping paper, often printed to look like cork, covers the filter plug and attaches the filter to the column of tobacco. Tipping paper is formulated to not adhere to the lips of smokers.
Other Filter components
The filters of some cigarettes, such as Parliament, also contain charcoal as an additional filtration agent. The "micronite filter" on Lorillard's' Kent brand cigarettes from 1952 to 1957 contained the deadliest form of asbestos - crocidolite. While advertisements at the time promoted the filter as making Kents healthier than other cigarettes, there are currently several lawsuits pending against Lorillard from families of smokers who died from a rare cancer caused primarily by crocidolite.
http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/
...buttfilters.htm
"Or perhaps Mr. Rafferty might have said "Hmm.. that's funny -- because we have a boatload of evidence that indicates that smoking tobacco is good for you. Anyone who is interested should go to www...""
I Would phrase it more along the lines of;
It is really sad to see our naive elected officials falling prey to well heeled Social Marketing campaigns [Propaganda]
Purchased realities which replace the growing list of evidence in physical research, which seems to indicate smoking provides many more benefits than the "public health" philosophers and tambourine bangers have predicted. For anyone interested in seeing life without the media blinders, visit
http://www.stahlheart.com/
wispof...goodforyou.html
... you should see them grin, its like you are telling them something they instinctively knew.
Yes, that is exactly what I notice. That's why I think the most important first task for each us, and for every smokers organization, is to help all fellow smokers as quickly as possible break the speell of the antismoking con men. That stress from the guilt and fear is the only thing about smoking that actually harms smoker's health.
It is so much more pleasant and healthy to take every puff with the same wholesome feeling of doing something good for yourself, as most would have while picking and eating a raspberry fresh from a bush, at leisurely pace and one at a time. Extrapolating from the animal experiments, each cigarette adds its own duration to your lifespan. Of course, that holds only if you too, just like those smoking hamsters, don't believe a word from the antismoking witch doctors.
Yes, Anon -- that would be a better quote -- and thanks for the link.
ladyteal has revealed one of those inconvenient truths, which seem to fit both the perspectives of Dave K's numbers and night light's physical evidence.
Cancer of the Lung is a well known work hazard of firemen who are constantly challenged by governments who refuse to compensate a work related danger we all know exists.
The burning of plastics, rubber and a host of petro-chemical substances results in a number of cancer causing respiration agents not the least of which would be Dioxins.
Dioxins are bio-cumulative meaning they collect in the body until a critical level is achieved, after which the risk of cancers climbs dramatically. Which seems to fit the 20-30 year scenario proposed for smoking, with few if any components known in cigarette smoke, which could remain in the body for such a long duration.
In the cigarette burning machines great care is taken to extinguish the cigarette being measured before it reaches the filter which would obviously skew the results.
If we look at real world smoking, a very small number of smokers particularly heavy or chain smokers are seen to be more at risk of lung cancers in most studies; much higher risk.
The difference being the group most likely to burn a cigarette beyond the tobacco and inhale burned filters are the very group most at risk and who most often contract small cell cancers [Smoker's Tumors?] If we compared the small number of smokers who smoke them down to the filters, I would imagine the statistical numbers of those who get lung cancers would be very close, to the percentage numbers of those who inhale burned filters consistently.
Prior to the second world war lung cancers were on the rise before the rise of cigarettes as popular fare. At the turn of the century inventors were busy developing the horseless carriage and diesel powered locomotives.
Which could account also for the rise in Lung Cancers as a better fit. To explain the rise in cancers, than cigarettes ever did fit. The reality known in 1950 was finally admitted a couple of years ago when diesel exhaust, despite heavy lobby protests, was finally added to the dangerous carcinogens list. Nothing we know grew tumors faster in a petre dish than diesel exhaust. Cigarettes never did demonstrate growth either in a dish or in live animal experiments.
If there ever were more notable carcinogens we should have been monitoring for decades and did not, we haven't seen them yet. Diesel exhaust contains Dioxins and the average truck on the road produces 11 full grams per year. times how many trucks?
Few posts back, I described an interesting incident, involving a well educated, intelligent non-smoker... - nightlight
I read it with great interest, and wondered what you said to him. I almost wish you'd recorded the conversation, and put it on the web.
But the truth, perhaps, is that most antismokers - present company excepted (where are they?) - are actually very ignorant about smoking, because they've never done any independent investigation of it, but have instead imbibed 50 years of antismoking messages read in Vogue magazine or heard as brief soundbites on TV chat shows, and re-inforced in countless casual conversations. What do they know? That smoking causes lung cancer. That it's 'bad' for people. Quite often they know someone who died of cancer, and they're convinced that it was smoking that caused it. And that's about it. That's all they know. And this is 'knowledge' of the most superficial and fragile 'Everybody Knows' variety. It's likely to disintegrate on encountering any hard information whatsoever. Or meeting anyone who doesn't simply repeat the antismoking mantra like everybody else, but who has - Wow! - a contrary opinion.
The whole antismoking cause is eggshell thin, and can't survive serious scrutiny. And that's what happened with your non-smoker. He'd never been presented with any hard facts. And his antismoking convictions simply disintegrated upon encountering some. Maybe it took just one small piece of information to knock the whole thing down. Maybe it took just meeting you.
Antismoking works by keeping people ignorant, and by endlessly repeating easily-digested antismoking messages. They do NOT want people to start asking questions. They want to create - have succeeded in creating - an apparent consensus of authoritative opinion against smoking. They work assiduously to preserve this consensus. That's why nobody must be seen to smoke on TV or in movies, or to voice any opinion other than that of the consensus. That's why there's no debate. That's why they do their science by press release.
Antismokers are in control in governments, medical professions, newspapers, and radio and TV stations all around the world. But they are essentially trying to keep people in the dark, keep them ignorant, stop questions being asked. Their very real dread must be that somebody makes a documentary, or runs a newspaper investigation, that exposes the dirty underbelly of antismoking to public scrutiny. And this is going to happen some day.
This has been great reading. Nightlight - it kinda sounds like you have a website or are starting one up. If you are I would like to volunteer my help. I am a smoker who enjoys it, and does not feel remotely quilty about it, and has never tried or even thought about quitting. From your posts it sounds like we think alike on the smoking issue. And it is time to do something, or I see smoking as becoming a criminal offense.
I agree with MCMM. This is a fascinating discussion and I have learnt much.
It is also remarkable (as stated by others before me) for the lack of dissenting comments from either the peanut gallery, or the Doc himself.
Proof, if it were needed, that facts defeat rhetoric every time.
nightlight said
" There are several other TS-LC animal models, e.g. F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice I cited earlier. Yes, they do get more cancers, tumors or pre-cancerous lesions in the lung, throat and bronchi. Yet they still live significantly longer than the non-smoking controls. If you check the discussion of the 2004 experiemnt on F344 rats (on mice here) and the references given there, you will see that this "mystery", which has plagued the attempts of antismoking "science" at finding support in hard science since 1950s, can be explained."
all I ever said is that smokers get more cancers, tumors of the lung too.
Sheesh!
Hi, this is my first post here. I’m a 51 year old smoker from Holland. I think it’s very refreshing to read something else about smoking aside from the usual doom & gloom propaganda…
Here’s my experience on the topic of ‘Tobacco Can Actually Be Good For You’: at 30 I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. A b*tch of a disease which is rare in smokers. Non-smoking UC patients are pretty ill and in pain most of the time. But as a smoker, I only have a mild flareup every 4 to 5 years, which is easily taken care of by a 2 week course of simple oldfashioned salazopyrine. After that, I’m fine again. No need for steroids or operations, thank you very much. And best of all: doctors never give me an earache about my smoking – they know I’ll be much worse off if I don’t smoke 
Another thing: one of my friends, a woman in her early thirties, quit smoking about a year ago. Since then she’s been having all kinds of weird health problems. It started with sudden bowel troubles which turned out to be an allergy to dairy products she never had before (she used to love all things cheese-y and now they’re out of bounds for her). And some weeks ago she had large ugly sores in her mouth which caused her a lot of pain and the dentist didn’t know what they were. Still, she’s very positive and cheerful about having quit the cigs. Beaming, she told me that since she quit she hasn’t had one single cold! (In an entire year, whoop dee doo!)
I didn’t tell her I haven’t had a cold for six years and my last ‘genuine flu’ was when I was 13 of 14. I also didn’t point out to her that in my opinion she hasn’t been well at all this past year. She’s been going from one complaint to another. Do you people think I should say something?
Alecto,
You can try, but don't count on it falling on open ears. Unfortunately it sounds like she thinks all her newfound problems are better than smoking.
I know of a story similar to yours, a woman quit smoking to finally shut her husband up about it. When I met her, she'd been smoke-free for 9 years and her husband was starting to talk her into smoking again. It seems since quitting she'd been hospitalized at least once a year for various serious health problems that never existed before she quit. The husband finally realized she was healthier when she smoked. Go figure!
As for the posts on here this weekend, all I can say is WOW!!! My brain in fried trying to take it all in! I'm surrounded by brainiacs here and that tends to quiet me down some....hehehe
Lynda F,
You’re probably right. I have a feeling my friend, like the woman you were talking about, also quit to please her man. At the moment she is just too starry-eyed about being a non-smoker like him. So I’ll just listen to her complaining about whatever she comes down with next and keep my big mouth firmly shut. 
Dave: all I ever said is that smokers get more cancers, tumors of the lung too.
The apparent paradox, of more lung cancers in some species of smoking animals, while they still lived substantially (~20 percent) longer, hence clearly benefited from smoking, begged for a more detailed probing. Otherwise we would be merely reinforcing the antismoking mythology, which was the spin in the abstracts & intro sections of those papers (to please the research sponsor and provide the mandatory 'horrors of smoking' fodder for the media).
More interestingly, once you get beyond their offical spin in the abstract & intro, you find that, sixty years later and despite the vast research expenditures, they still haven't figured out how to make tobacco smoke cause any harm at all, anything short of brute asphyxiation, to the health and longevity of the smokers. That's the most telling fact on how truly potent and beneficial this ancient miracle medicine and youth elixir is.
If the focus were actually devoted to treating disease, rather than managing peoples lives, we likely wouldn't see real treatments and solutions being annexed like this one.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...070116/
20070116
"A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers.
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit."
Alecto: Here’s my experience on the topic of ‘Tobacco Can Actually Be Good For You’: at 30 I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.
You may find interesting this little survey, by none other than pharma researchers (SRNT Vol 1, No 4, 1995), of various diseases and conditions, including ulcerative colitis and aphthous ulcers mentioned in this thread, for which tobacco smoking is grudgingly acknowledged (in very quiet whispers, though) as being protective & therapeutic.
mcmm:it kinda sounds like you have a website or are starting one up. If you are I would like to volunteer my help.
Thanks, mcmm. My day job (chief scientist & cto) doesn't leave me much free time presently, other than occasional weekend. Few other fellow smokers have already started 'smoking is good for you' inspired web sites and one MySpace page. Truth and hard science being our allies, we cannot but win.
Writing recently in favour of the UK smoking ban, Polly Toynbee said of smokers:
They are desperate addicts, ashamed of themselves, inconveniencing themselves and well aware of the risks to their health. It’s not death they should fear, but the grim spectacle of wards full of amputees whose veins have clogged, or the breathless emphysema wards.
However, UK mortality from emphysema would appear to be an order of magnitude less than that of lung cancer. Assuming that roughly 1 in 10 smokers are likely to get lung cancer, that suggests that only 1 in 100 smokers will wind up in the 'breathless emphysema wards'.
What about lower limb amputation? There are about 5000 of these a year in the UK. And the cause for the greater bulk of them is given as diabetes mellitus and non-diabetic arteriosclerosis.
The way Toynbee put it, one would think that it was the more or less inevitable fate of smokers to first have their legs sawn off, before being wheeled off to the emphysema wards. In reality, smokers would have to be very unlucky to meet with such a fate. But Toynbee doesn't care to mention this, of course.
GDF-Makes me laugh. Give them an OSCAR and let's move on.
That sound about right GDF, they admit they do not know how, but of the "fact" that smoking causes these cancers, there can be no doubt. and they call themselves scientists! propagandists more like.
I suppose their next step will be to invent a plausible mechanism to validate their premature conclusion and then move on to the ingrown toenail research.
Scientists quote
"What's unclear is how exactly smoking causes these cancers."
It wont be long before honest scientists will be ashamed to tell anyone what their profession is. A sad demise for a profession that used to be held in high esteem.
GreatScot
It is starting to look as though all anyone has to do is wait. The anti smoking bigots are destroying their own credibility without any help.
The next round of insanity, ya gotta love it LMAO
http://www.pr-inside.com/why-fir...ing-
r650452.htm
"Why Fire Smokers - Fox Morning 6/19 - Save $12,000/yr // Smokers Breath is an Indoor Air Pollution Hazard"
"- Why companies should fire smokers, and employ only nonsmokers, will be the topic of Fox's Morning Show tomorrow [6/19] at 9 AM Eastern Time featuring "The Man Behind the Cigarette Commercial Ban," the "Ralph Nader of the Tobacco Industry," "Mr. Antismoking," and "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," who will explain why it's both legal and profitable to do so."
Catching up on this thread was a full night's work and I hesitate to jump in, especially since, like Dave K and McFadden, I remain a (respectful) skeptic, though grateful for some of the facts I've picked up.
FWIW, some idle and scattered observations.
Tho I'm skeptical about accepting the idea that there's no link between smoking and LC, I do object to saying the link is "causal." Since only 8%-10% of smokers ever get LC, "cause" seems inappropriate and (since 90%-92% of smokers never get LC and 15%-20% of never smokers do) smoking would appear to be, in itself, neither a necessary nor sufficient precursor. But I do believe it's smoking + factor/ factors unknown, that vary with the individual.
How to explain, tho, that of those who do have LC, an average of 80% are current or former smokers. (That stat ties in perfectly with IRO's chart, too.)
Nightlight would appear to think (correct me if I'm wrong here, NL) that they smoke because they're susceptible to LC and are trying to stave it off. (?) An interesting paper was once posted here to that very point. I believe it was posted by Brian, and was authored by a statistician and titled something like "Does Lung Cancer Cause Smoking?"
Interesting idea to play with,at least with an intellectually open mind.
If (and that's if) inflammation is involved in setting the stage for cancer, or if (if) the kind of constriction involved in asthma and COPD is similarly involved, then smoking (which provably unconstricts-- as some asthmatics here note, and at least arguably is an anti-inflammatory) might, in fact, be a form of early self-medication, at least of the precursor symptoms involved in the later onset of cancer.
The question then arises: but would this apply to teens-- people who start smoking perhaps 50 years before cancer would be probable? My first answer would be no. But I could answer yes depending on whether inflammation and constriction are in any way involved. I know from myself, going back to my teens, that my first physiological reaction to anger, extreme stress, or frustration is--always was-- a tightening of my throat and possibly of my lungs. As a kid, I used to go out back and break things to relieve it. As an adult, I smoke. As a novelist, I once wrote--about a character who was under great pressure-- that "sometimes he felt he couldn't take a deep breath unless there was a smoke in it." Obviously, biographical. Point being that whether those manifestations are related to precursors of cancer or not, smoking is surely a form of medication. And a reason why neither Mr. Bill's vaunted chaw, nor Big Pharma's pills/ patches/ gums would, as Adelaide said, "get anywhere near where the trouble is."
I have no doubt that smoking has many positive mental and physical health effects and helps to ward off a number of diseases, not the least of which are Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and as somebody mentioned diseases of the bowel. However, there are likely tradeoffs. Why wouldn't there be? Anything potent enough to have an effect, generally has a side effect, at least in a given % of the population.
I've long been interested in the germ theory of cancer, which is increasingly proving the true link in more and more kinds of cancers. And even have a quirky theory on why smokers would be more likely than nonsmokers to expose themselves to germs that might attack the respiratory system. Except for Purell freaks, we grab our cigarettes out of the pack by the filter end with worldly hands, and then shove them into our mouths and inhale whatever's there into our lungs. Okay; I said it was quirky. But I don't think the germ theory is, and the question that prompted this hypothesis would be: if everyone's exposed to the same LC-causing germs, why woud more smokers get LC?
Final unrelated observation: If smoking down to the filter has anything to do with lung ailments, then the taxes that make cigarettes so costly cause more people to smoke em down to the end, and/or to relight a half-smoked cigarette. So if filters are somehow causal, then taxes are literally killing us.
I actually got on here tonight to post Banzaf's new press release which drools over the punitive possibilites from that "study" showing smokers have toxic breath that can harm children and house plants even when they don't actively smoke in their presence, but it'll get lost here and so, for another day...
:
On the smoking is good for you theme.
When I was a child, winters were a bad time for me, I suffered every winter from Raynaud's Phenomenon.
Its a painful condition that seems to throw you into the first stages of frostbite if you get only a little cold, the blood withdraws from your fingers and toes and your fingers go white.When the blood returns it hurts a lot.
My teenage years were the same, but at last I grew out of it, with only a very, very occasional mild attack, or so I thought.
Doing this research I have found that when you light up on a frosty morning outside, that small illusion of warmth you think is just imagination, is it appears, a tiny niacin flush.
Niacin is a vasodilator.
Which is why I now realise that I haven't really "grown out" of Raynauds Phenomenon, I just unwittingly kept it at bay.
Now here is a pretty classic illustration of the symptom not the cause.
Raynaud's Phenomenon
"It is much more common in women than in men and in smokers than in nonsmokers"
http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/...nd/
C375047.html
Oh gosh, I wonder why?
Now read the rest and see the well meaning misdirection.
Sound advice, if you think smokers inhale nicotine, which is of course a vasoconstrictor.
From Banzaf's comments;
""Nobody has the right to any particular job. Under our free enterprise system, employers -- rather than bureaucrats -- determine the conditions of employment, and employees who want a job must accept the conditions."
[[Would that not be contradicting the former claim, of employees being "forced" to accept smoking in the workplace as an unforgivable sin]]
"The only major exception is that basing decisions on factors like race, national origin, gender, disability, etc. are prohibited since these are fixed conditions and don't adversely affect the employer.
Smoking is an activity rather than an immutable condition, and each smoking worker seriously affects the employer's bottom line.""
Well we have a solution then, smokers can and should be forced to quit or starve.
Hitler once decried Jews smell bad and destroy the ambiance of a fine meal so they will be banned from restaurants.
We can follow the reasoning further and clean up the illegal drug trade by forcing addicts to accept treatments too. Alcoholics, Schizophrenics who refuse to take their meds and sex addicts can all be forced to accept treatments, now that the enlightened and normal people have the final say in what is normal and permissible activity.
Employment standards can cure the unemployment situation now that 25% of the workforce is no longer deserving of employment. Any other non normal can be similarly eliminated with the new bad breath healthcare warning that power is increased tremendously.
Banzaf has finally moved the elimination of the most hateful yet preventable scourge society has ever known, one step closer to elimination as well.
In a state with no individual rights or freedoms, who needs Lawyers?
Rose;
I work outdoors in the winter, minus 40-50 at height is a lot colder than most people realize at ground level.
Few who work in these conditions that I know do not smoke. If you allow your fingers to freeze or the effects of hypothermia to set in particularly of you are working on a Bolson's chair, you are trapped.
A smoke is well known [and not by imagination], to offset the effects of the cold, allowing me to work longer while increasing my personal level of safety. If the all knowing public health morons were made to sit in my chair, for 15 minutes they would be begging for a smoke. If for no other reason to calm their frayed nerves.
Walt
I remain a slight sceptic too about the LC connection, but then again, I have had to unlearn so much that I previously believed was true, that I think I will put that one on the backburner for a while.
The reason I lean more towards industrial and vehicle pollution is this study of tissues from the time.
This is the daily exposure of the people of London, not just a one off event, but in smaller amounts usually.
Scroll down to Results and Discussion
That is one Hellbroth of toxins and contaminants, including particles of metal!
This of course would be exactly the same in most major cities throughout the western world.
Also at the time that smoking appears to be at its most widespread and heaviest.
Smoking started to decline at the same time, I would suspect, as the Clean Air Acts really began to take effect.
A little thing that popped into my mind, in the old days,workers houses used to be situated next to the factory, now the factories may have gone but the houses remain.
There might be a clue to continuing concentrations of smoking in poorer areas ( despite all the antismoking campaigns ) if soil samples were taken from the backyards.
Anonymous
Well I'd call that a pretty good confirmation, you have my admiration, I am terrified of heights.
We both use nicotinic acid as a vasodilator to help us survive, those "sin" taxes look less justifiable by the hour.
Walt: Nightlight would appear to think (correct me if I'm wrong here, NL) that they smoke because they're susceptible to LC and are trying to stave it off.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. The positive statistical association between smoking and LC is similar to positive association between the use of sunglasses and sunburns. Sunglasses, by virtue of their protective effect against some aspects of sun exposure, are a proxy for sun exposure, which in turn causes the sunburns.
Namely, the numerous upregulating and anti-inflammatory immune effects of tobacco smoke cause (in the sense of instinctive form of self-medication, similar to cats or dogs seeking and nibbling on particular plants when they don't feel well, or like unusual food cravings in pregnant women) people who need such immune boost or protection (due to some toxic exposures and/or additional individual sensitivites to them) to smoke more than those who don't need such boost.
But these very same toxic exposures which cause immune boost and the need to smoke as a form of self-medication, may also be carcinogenic, or may go together with carcinogens (on which immune boost of smoking no effect). Therefore smoking will end up being statistically associated with these carcinogens and any of their effects, such as lung cancers.
Since no smoking studies are controlling for these confounding variables, or even mentioning immune effects of TS or their confounding role, the positive correlation TS-LC is an artifact of this unaccounted and uncontrolled confounding. This is analogous to the similar correlation between the use of sunglasses and sunburns, which is an artifact of not controlling for the confounding variable 'sun exposure'.
The sunglasses-sunburns example deals with macroscopic self-evident phenomena, we understand the causal graph and we could easily control for the 'sun exposure' variable which would make the positive correlations disappear.
That kind of control is presently not possible for the TS-LC case since there are no good models for either etiology of LC or for the biochemical cause-effect graph of tobacco smoking (its causes and effects at the biochemical level, since they need to be consdered within the biochemistry of the processes leading to LC).
The honest epidemiological reserach of smoking, which doesn't exist at present, would certainly recognize such confounding, consider the immune effects of TS and based on these at least put some effort at controlling the relevant exposure variables (e.g. through some indirect markers of carcinogenic exposures & individual sensitivities). But since that's not what the present antismoking "science" is about, we shouldn't expect any corrections from that "scientific" discipline.
Sorry Walt I forgot the link
http://www.ehponline.org/members.../6114/
6114.html
Walt
"How to explain, tho, that of those who do have LC, an average of 80% are current or former smokers."
The same groups making this claim also acknowledge LC is a disease of the elderly, occurring primarily beyond 70 years of age. Combined with the fact in the 60s when 54% of the population smoked, the group was comprised of 80% men and only 20% women averaging 54% of the total population.
In an age when women in the vast majority did not work around toxic chemicals and most didn't even drive cars. [for men industrial safety regulations were almost non existent, Men shoveled coal into the home furnace and inhaled lead in car exhaust in much higher exposure rates, they worked around asbestos and a host of other solvents and chemicals which were rarely seen in the home]
Is it any wonder more men than women would be susceptible to LC? The 80% represented is likely very close to the population norm, exactly the same number as the percentage risk of non smokers in the group.
You should notice there is a huge difference when you divide the LC patients by gender, women have almost no increased risk compared to the "non smoking" controls which is exactly what you would expect to find had no one ever smoked.
"How to explain, tho, that of those who do have LC, an average of 80% are current or former smokers."
The big question is how do you define a "former smoker"?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/
n...ettesmoking.htm
Persons who smoked 100 cigarettes and who now smoke every day or some days are defined as current smokers.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tob...tc_term-
eng.php
Former smoker: was not smoking at the time of the interview, however, answered "YES" to the question "Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your life?"
News from the experimental bed-
Yesterday, having been hit by torrential rain all Midsummers Day, we were treated to 24 hours of severe gales.
The tobacco plants were well staked and tied in several places to minimise pressure damage, so were OK.
However this morning when I went out to view the damage (we have lost a quarter of the walnut tree ) I noticed that where the flailing tobacco leaves had repeatedly hit the wall, the cells had ruptured covering the green leaves in sap which had then dried with the chlorophyll.
Where it was still damp it looked black, where it was dry it had turned dark brown.
Every one of the injured leaves looked as if the abraided edge had been dipped in tar.
You get the same effect with cut potatoes exposed to air and with banana skins.
Recipe : make a pesto of green tobacco leaves and leave it in a jar for a bit.
Thick black "tar"!
Yes, association does not prove cause, but association is a darn good way to design a hypothesis for further testing.
and hypothesis if, it's repeatable, can be a good way to design public health policy, when used cautiously.
LET ME REEMPHASIZE..CAUTIOUSLY ...
the stronger the asociation, the more likely it is to end up being true too.
if you google "cancer epidemiology" "time trends" together, you will get lots of hits, illustrating examples how researchers learn from time trends of disease
It should be noted also Cancer rates in North America peaked in 1992 and have declined steadily since, although incidence rates are continuing to climb parallel to population increases.
In the 70s close to 20 years prior to the beginning of the decline in cancers, we eliminated coal in home heating, Asbestos in the workplace, lead from gasoline and added catalytic converters to cars, reducing nox and sox emissions. At the same time we started to demand reduced emissions from industry and power plants and as one would expect, if you believe these moves afforded health benefit; the declines of Cancers [and smoking related diseases] across the board showed significant effects right on target 20 years later.
With a steady decline of smoking in population prevalence, there is no indication any effect has been seen particularly with small cell carcinomas which are the most significant type said to be associated with smoking. The numbers continue to rise with the same number of smokers throughout the past 50 years. If small cell carcinomas exhibit 80% of small cell LC as a result of smoking, in 1960 the numbers would have to have been consistent. The reality is, they were much less in number, which should tell you smoking is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the primary cause of either lung cancers or even small cell lung cancers, despite what you may have heard.
The numbers as far as asthma and allergies have been rising, at an alarming rate, particularly in the past 20 years. Since 1986 nut allergies have tripled, while asthma, lactose intolerance and allergies [said to be associated to smoking] have risen over 40%, during a time second hand smoke exposure rates dropped by 75% [Carmona et al] go figure...
the numerous upregulating and anti-inflammatory immune effects of tobacco smoke cause... people who need such immune boost or protection... to smoke more than those who don't need such boost. - nightlight
If this were the case, wouldn't the result be that, without the immune boost from TS, a number of the diseases that it holds in check would become more common? Is there any sign of this happening? One that comes to mind is asthma, for which smoking was once prescribed, and which is now far more common than it was 50 years ago. Maybe ubiquitous ETS 50 years ago was accidentally suppressing asthma in children?
http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/conten...bstract/62/1/
85
...from 1955 to 2004. The prevalence of asthma increased in children by 2 to 3-fold, but may have flattened or even fallen recently. Current trends in adult prevalence are flat.
Are there other examples? Could the 'epidemic' of obesity be a consequence of the decline in smoking? Smoking is well known to suppress appetite, and it's very common for people who give up smoking to put on weight. What if ETS, apart from boosting immunity to asthma in the community, also acted as a mild appetite suppressant?
What other disorders have been increasing in incidence while smoking has been decreasing?
Anonymous may have just pointed to some more of them.
Rose, does the experimental bed have flashing knobs like in 'allo 'allo?
Recent research apparently shows that quitting smoking is a major factor in LC. Yet some groups claim that the risk diminsishes to 1/2 that of a person who smokes within 10yrs.
How much of the LC rate is due to people
1 Giving up completely
2 Those Giving up/restarting
Is the LC/smoking graph association consistent with people who smoke only?
Could the 30yr delay be due to people stopping rather than continuing?
west
----
Seek and ye shall find
tyrosinase
"A copper-containing enzyme of plant and animal tissues that catalyzes the production of melanin and other pigments from tyrosine by oxidation, as in the blackening of a peeled or sliced potato exposed to air."
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyr...?
cat=technology
tyrosine
"A non-essential amino acid, formed in the body from the essential amino acid phenylalanine, hence it has some sparing action on phenylalanine. In addition to its role in proteins, tyrosine is the precursor for the synthesis of melanin (the black and brown pigment of skin and hair), and adrenaline and noradrenaline"
"Medical use
L-Tyrosine is sometimes recommended by practitioners as helpful for weight loss, clinical depression, Parkinson's Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder, and phenylketonuria; however, one study found that it had no impact on endurance exercise performance"
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyr...sine?
cat=health
Propaganda always works best, when you can confuse the victim group, with emotion inspiring numbers, which deliberately gray the vast difference between ratios and rates.
Prevalence versus incidence is used to full advantage, or as Banzaf's arguments go; demanding an employers right to fire smokers, stating employment requires employee accommodation in respect of the existing working conditions. The rules of employment, as set by a right of employers to dictate policies in a free market.
While hypocritically "leveling the playing field" works, when the situation is reversed, taking away the right of employers [even if employees are in complete agreement] to decide to allow smoking and simply hang a sign on the door. A reverse is seen again in the logic of "leveling of the playing field" which is said to be required, despite the claims; smoking bans increase hospitality venue sales.
west
Good thinking, I shall buy some solar powered lights, so that I can continue my observations in the dark.
Other examples of increasing incidence:
“Levels of allergy in the population have soared in recent years…….Asthma, rhinitis and eczema have increased in incidence two- to three-fold in the last 20 years. Dr Shuaib Nasser, a consultant allergist at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, told us:
In an allergy clinic 10 years ago, if we saw a patient with a fruit allergy or a latex rubber allergy, we would call everyone in the clinic round to talk to the patient. All the doctors, all the nurses would come round and we would talk with great enthusiasm with the patient because this was such a rare disorder. Now we see these patients two or three times a week and there is nothing surprising about it. The health service has to evolve with the changing pattern of illness”
http://www.clinicalanswers.nhs.u...m?
question=3200
This article cites
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI...Rank=1&
Rank=192
"Since only 8%-10% of smokers ever get LC, "cause" seems inappropriate and (since 90%-92% of smokers never get LC and 15%-20% of never smokers do)"
Walt, did you mean to say that? I assume you mean to say that "15%-20% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers". As it is written, it sounds like smokers are only half as likely to get lung cancer as never smokers.
But given where nightlight is taking us in this thread, that may just turn out to be true!
I, too, have kept out of these discussions, not that I don't have a view on the subject, more that I, quite frankly, no longer know what to believe! Having spent my working life in this area - (for instance, my first real job was as a statistician in a Cancer Registry, which is where and how I came to do some work for Richard Doll) - it is a massive shock to my belief system even to consider following nigh5light's line of argument.
But then my belief system started being shaken when I was asked to accept that statistical methods were proving that my smoking habit was killing others. This just didn't chime with any common sense interpretation and I eventually 'bit the bullet' and started my own line of investigation (which of course led me to speakeasy, forces then here).
Once it became obvious that the whole 'passive smoking' thing was a politically motivated lie, and that the mathematical-statistical method retained its integrity (even though its users didn't!) I felt better about things. But I now have to say I am completely sceptical about all use of statistics in this new pseudo-science of epidemiology. And I now see just how many false idols we have been forced to worship - all in the worthless pursuit of immortality!
So I am now firmly in the 'undecided' camp, and what I desperately need to see is some 'real' science being applied to the problem.
Because as I see things, all real scientific study of the effects of tobacco on health stopped some 50 years ago, and any attempts to restart it (eg as in the "safer cigarette" of Gio Gori and others) never gets beyond the concept stage. The only 'research' carried out in the past few decades has been designed to increase the preceived damage inflicted by smoking tobacco and, whatever one truly believes, nothing can be that bad, surely?
In the final analysis, it all does come down to whether one accepts the "smoking causes lung cancer" mantra - because there is no other ailment that could be uniquely attributed to smoking, nor indeed for which would smoking even be the major 'risk factor' (I really hate, that meaningless term). And, as many have and, quite rightly, will continue to point out, this has not been proven - and cannot be proven. Why? Because nowhere is there a complete and accurate record of the smoking habits of every single member of the population, without which every relationship between smoking and LC (and other ailments) is only ever determined though analyis of population samples. Since the 'passive smoking' scam has proven that the anti-smoking lobby has absolutely no moral or scientific integrity whatsoever, one then has to ask the question "did they ever have any?", and if they didn't, then what value can be placed on the totality of previous epidemiological research?
Which is why my own 'bete-noir' of epidemiology is the poor quality of the data which is used in most (if not all) epidemiological studies. Poor because it is obtained through observation or self-selection, never through double-blind randomization of large samples; poor because of the absence of proper identification or stratification of current and historical smoking status and habits; and extremely poor because of the constant failure properly to address the problems of confounding factors, coupled with the naive belief that all one has to do is press a button labelled 'adjust' and they will magically disappear. They won't!
So until this major problem of poor quality data is properly addressed - and to a level where it really is possible to accept the samples used as a genuine proxy for the whole population, then it is not possible to conclude that smoking causes lung cancer - nor even that most lung cancers occur in smokers. It may seem that way in the samples, but....
My final beef is that the majority of the supposed relationships between smoking and LC or other ailments is based on research that took place many decades ago (The Hill/Doll Doctors' Survey started some 50 years ago, for example). Yet supposedly serious people (such as Michael Siegel) still insist on using 'risk factors' derived from these old analyses to apply to today's world and predict the body cound for all these ailments. But why? Hasn't the world moved on massively over these decades? Haven't the tobacco product, packaging, delivery mechanisms and consumption habit changed many times in this period? So why should we be coerced into living our lives as if we were still in ambient environment of the 1950s or 1960s?
I finish my ramblings with an observation on this thread. I may stand corrected (it is a very long thread after all) but I see a lot of discussion about tobacco per se, yet I don't know if anyone raised the two most likely reasons that smoking may have some carcinogenic tendencies, namely:
i) the inorganic fertilisers, weedkillers amd insecticides used on the tobacco crop (or at least were used during the period covered by most acknowledged scientific studies), and
ii) we set fire to it!
I can happily conclude that tobacco is itself harmless, and that it really does have therapeutic properties. But unless we can be sure that the crop is free from potentially carcinogenic chemical treatments and that burning the tobbaco leaf doesn't introduce some carcinogenicity, then there remains, in my mind, the supspicion that smoking (forget the 'tobacco' part) might cause cancer - but only if you do a lot of it!
Finally can I raise my hat to nightlight for leading such a thought-provoking debate here. I admit to having been similarly impressed when he (she?) did so on the Speakeasy forum too. If only we could get the 'official' scientists - or more importantly, the funders - to open their minds and pursue some of nightlight's arguments, who knows, we may be all in for a bit of a surprise.
Best of health
.
Unfortunately Brian it will never happen.I agree whole heartedly that ALL scientific research of any value just happened to cease in the 1950's,and as such it makes me wonder why.There are two camps nowadays,the antis and the rest.Those of us who seek the real truth will have to decide for themselves.As i see it ,and confirmed by Dr Siegel,there WILL BE NO DEBATE.I just hope these died in the wool antis,can live with themselves for denying those who fall foul to lung cancer any hope of cure,since in their minds,it doesn't occur in non smokers.ALL TC ARE AS GUILTY AS HELL ON THIS.Let the truth and debate roll,who needs the rantis.
Brian,
Many of your thoughts seemed to be pulled straight out of my mind. Right down to hating the misleading term "risk factor".
My background is similar to yours, with one important difference. Although I am a (PhD.) public health statistician/researcher, my experience is NOT in tobacco or cancer. I think that gives me a different perspective. What I see is crap passing for science in smoking studies that would be laughed out of the room in any real public health investigation. And the arrogance of the claims of having "the answers" is beyond belief. Real science is, above all else, humble in its claims.
I summarize much of what you said about lifestyle epidemiology (poor data, bias, history effects, (now) corruption, and so on) as -- "you can't get there from here". I became convinced quite awhile ago that for these reasons epidemiology cannot answer the TS/LC question. I go a bit further than you perhaps, in that I further submit that the evidence of the hard sciences points away from such a connection.
Anyway -- just wanted to express my appreciation for that post.
"coupled with the naive belief that all one has to do is press a button labelled 'adjust' and they will magically disappear. They won't!"
Those words are priceless! Thank you again.
Help, I need a chemist.
In trying to find out more about tyrosine in tobacco ( thanks to a gale force wind ) I have tripped over amino acids in tobacco brands.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...96140-
6145.html
Now I thought that amino acids were the good guys, but after reading this, I am not so sure.
BRAIN CELL DAMAGE FROM
AMINO ACID ISOLATES:
A PRIMARY CONCERN FROM ASPARTAME-BASED
PRODUCTS AND ARTIFICIAL SWEETENING AGENTS
http://www.wnho.net/
aspartame_br...rain_damage.htm
Please explain.
Walt, did you mean to say that? I assume you mean to say that "15%-20% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers". As it is written, it sounds like smokers are only half as likely to get lung cancer as never smokers. - Brian Bond
That's what I thought!
But then my belief system started being shaken when I was asked to accept that statistical methods were proving that my smoking habit was killing others. This just didn't chime with any common sense interpretation
I think there is an important point here, which is that when you come up with some calculated result, it ought to square with what common sense would lead you to expect. If, for example, you calculate the volume of water in a bath tub, and your calculations indicate that it's 5 million litres, this probably won't square with common sense that expected something like 50 litres. So you go back and redo the calculation, and find that you hit the decimal point button in the wrong place. Or maybe you find that bathtubs are much bigger than you thought they were.
This is the problem for me with the supposed dangers of passive smoking. It doesn't square with common sense. I could believe it if I'd regularly seen people sitting outside smokey bars gasping for breath, and ambulances arriving to take them away. But they don't.
I don't know if anyone raised the two most likely reasons that smoking may have some carcinogenic tendencies, namely:
i) the inorganic fertilisers, weedkillers amd insecticides used on the tobacco crop (or at least were used during the period covered by most acknowledged scientific studies), and
ii) we set fire to it!
I mentioned radioactive fertilisers briefly upthread.
I think that the combustion aspect deserves more attention. Fisher [p. 415] mentions it in passing:
Then also, it has been observed that the temperature at which the tobacco is burned is higher in the case of the cigarette than in the case of the pipe, and, it could be (though it certainly is not known to be) that burning at a higher temperature is a condition for producing something quite unknown, something quite unexplored, something quite hypothetical, in the tobacco smoke which would be capable of producing lung cancer.
Related to this is the way that people smoke cigarettes. Some people seem to draw hot smoke straight out of the cigarettes into their lungs. But I always draw the smoke into my mouth, and then open my mouth and draw smoke and cool air into my lungs. I never inhale hot smoke. If I do, I end up coughing furiously. It's always seemed to me more likely that the real danger lies not in the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke, but its temperature. Some links:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...894&
pageindex=1
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?...=10029&
page=284
The highest temperature reached during the burning of tobacco is approximately 800°C in the center of the burning zone during smolder. During puff, a solid-phase temperature of approximately 910°C is reached at the burning zone periphery, while the gas temperatures are lower. They vary between 600 and 700°C as the puff progresses. After the puff ends, solid-phase temperatures rapidly cool to approximately 600°C.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...46231-
6237.html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.or...nt/16/6/
490.pdf
Temperature Profiles Throughout Cigarettes, Cigars, and Pipes. Greene. 1955 [didn't find this]
Mr Banzhaf just made my day!
He didn’t mention religion as a basis on which you cannot fire someone. And rightly so! After all, religion is *not* a fixed condition, people convert and deconvert all the time. So now I can finally get rid of my Muslim employees! Their religion seriously affects my bottom line. Prayers during work hours, weeks of lowered productivity during Ramadan… and don’t get me started on the awful headscarves the women insist on wearing!
But thanks to wonderful Mr Banzhaf, I can now sack them. Just like that! Thank you Mr B – now listen… I also have this Jewish guy working for me who I don’t particularly like…
idlex
As an experiment I tried smoking some lemon balm ( smoking herb ), the smoke was incredibly hot, not at all like tobacco which I find burns quite cool.
As I smoked the lemon balm in the same way ( very briefly ) I can only assume that different plants burn at different temperatures according to their plant chemicals. In my experience ordinary herbal cigarettes burn slightly hotter too.
I will have to attempt smoking a cigar and compare.
I love the smell of someone elses cigar smoke, but for some unknown reason, never wanted to smoke one myself.
Reckless self-endangerment is all in a days work for a kitchen alchemist
Finally the memory kicks in from a year ago.
Excerpts from Nutritional Herbology
"The popularity of peppermint is based on its volatile oil, which contains an abundance of menthol, a time-honored and clinically proven aid to digestion. Menthol is also a mild antispasmodic which makes it useful for relieving menstrual cramps and nausea. It is also a mild vasodilator, creating a warm or flushed feeling by stimulating circulation"
http://www.bulkherbstore.com/PPLC
Niacin to Improve Blood Flow in People With Sickle Cell Disease
"This study will determine whether niacin can improve blood flow in people with sickle cell disease, in which abnormal red blood cells interfere with blood flow to cause the disease symptoms. Niacin, a drug that has been used to increase HDL (good cholesterol) levels, improves blood flow in people without sickle cell disease. This study will see if it can do the same in people with the disease"
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct...how/
NCT00508989
"Sickle Cell mainly affects people of African, Caribbean, Indian, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent."
As an experiment I tried smoking some lemon balm ( smoking herb ), the smoke was incredibly hot, not at all like tobacco which I find burns quite cool. - Rose
I'm not sure about tobacco burning cool. I smoke roll-ups, using slightly damp rolling tobacco. It burns cool. But if the tobacco is allowed to dry out (keeping a bit of raw potato in with it prevents this), and then rolled into a cigarette, the smoke is incredibly hot. What I do then is to boil a kettle, and steam the dry tobacco briefly.
Now, I'm not sure why dry tobacco seems so much hotter. Maybe damp tobacco burns at the same temperature as dry tobacco, but has water vapour admixed in the smoke, and this is somehow perceived as cooler (maybe like menthol cigarettes).
But I suspect it actually is cooler. And my physics reasoning is that the combustion of the tobacco (and paper) is exothermic (heat producing), and this heat goes to heat up the tobacco in the cigarette. If the tobacco is damp, then some of this heat is absorbed into the water - as latent heat of evaporation - prior to it being vaporized. The net result will be that damp tobacco won't get to such a high temperature as dry tobacco when burned.
The same probably applies to lemon balm. If it's too dry, it will also burn hot.
This sort of physical reasoning might explain why cigarettes burn hotter than pipes or cigars. The same amount of tobacco will release the same amount of heat. But in a cigarette there is a small mass of tobacco that gets heated up, and so it reaches a higher temperature. In a pipe, the pipe bowl will absorb quite a lot of heat, so the combustion temperature will be lower. Cigars... I'm not sure about cigars. Ermala and Holsti put pipe combustion zone temperatures at about 500 degC, and cigarette combustion zone at average 650 degC.
Brian Bond: two most likely reasons that smoking may have some carcinogenic tendencies, namely:
i) the inorganic fertilisers, weedkillers and insecticides used on the tobacco crop (or at least were used during the period covered by most acknowledged scientific studies), and
There are brands of cigarettes made from real leaf, organically grown and additive free (pioneered by Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, Co., with their Natural American Spirit cigarettes and rolling tobacco). The 'natural tobacco' choices are even wider for those who roll or stuff their own cigarettes. Many among popular supermarket brands, such as Marlboro, don't even use tobacco leaf, 'tobacco sheets', reconstituted from less expensive tobacco plant scraps, wood pulp, adhesives, preservatives, expanders,... with added coloring, flavoring and nicotine to simulate the real tobacco leaf. For fairness sake, some supermarket brands (e.g. Winstons), are made of whole leaf and claim to be 'additive free' (although, having tried several of such brands, I suspect there is a bit of built in semantic flexibility in 'additive' and 'free').
These problems, though, are the result of mass market, short term profits driven industrial agriculture, which are by no means unique or particularly worse in tobacco production. They are in fact much less of a problem for a smoker due to comparatively minuscule quantities of tobacco matter ingested, compared to those from mass produced foods and beverages. To get a better perspective, consider that a full flavor cigarette now days produces ~20-25 mg of primary smoke matter, of which about 20 percent or ~5 mg is retained, the rest being exhaled, yielding ~ 100 mg of ingested tobacco matter per pack. That is several thousands times smaller quantity of industrial mass market agricultural matter, with all that goes with it, ingested than what any of us ingests through foods and beverages every day.
Well, someone may object, however small the quantity, still you are ingesting some of that 'bad stuff' needlessly, while food and beverages you do need to survive. First, you don't need every last 100 milligrams of the food you ingest. If I skip just one peanut or M&M, which I don't really need to survive, that should easily take care of the mass market agricultural junk excess from smoking.
If you pursue this chain through the next natural step, you realize that tobacco smoke suppresses appetite, reducing your daily food intake (by 10-20 percent), with all the agricultural junk that goes with it, by 2-3 orders of magnitude larger quantity than the 100 mg ingested from a pack of cigarettes. Thus, even though you are taking in some industrial agriculture junk with tobacco smoke, you reducing the total taken in by far more, hence smoking provides clear and substantial benefit in this regard.
Let's follow up this trail one step further and ask -- what happens with those toxins of industrial agriculture when they get into your body? Your internal antioxidants and detox enzymes, mainly glutathione, catalase and SOD will neutralize and excrete most of it. Recalling now that tobacco smoke dramatically upregulates these very enzymes, nearly doubling their levels, you realize that even the dramatically reduced total toxic intake, as deduced in the previous step, is also neutralized and excreted at nearly doubled rates of those you would have without smoking. Hence, your tolerance and resilience against the side-effects of mass market industrial foods would be increased, substantially reducing the total load and protecting you from the toxic immune overload.
The people who would perceive the most benefits of these significant protective effects of smoking would be those whose immune systems are overloaded the most due to the combined effects of all their toxic exposures (from foods, work and environment) and their immune weaknesses (genetic or imprinted into their biochemical networks throughout their life). Hence, they would the most motivated to start and continue smoking, defying all the social and economic pressures against it. Of course, these same hardships, which increased their motivation to smoke, will also over time cause variety of health and other problems, which then become statistically associated with smoking.
While the 'socioeconomic status' parameter does capture some of this confounding, that is quite a weak and crude correlate of the much more intricate immune system overload status which is the real source of the confounding. Since measuring and accounting for these confounding effect, even the little that might be possible with the best of present science, would be prohibitively expensive and impractical, this additionally limits what the statistical correlations on self-selected smokers and non-smokers can tell us about the health effects of smoking. Of course, we do have quite a bit of hard science in this field, with animal experiments, where smoking status is truly independent from any other parameter and where detailed and invasive analysis of the smoking effects can be done freely and throughout the experiments. But since these tend to come out the "wrong" way, the poor antismoking "scientists" had no choice but to stick, for sixty years now, with the only thing that "works" for them -- the infinitely malleable, heavily confounded, flexibly interpretable correlations on self-selected subjects.
Brian Bond: ii) we set fire to it!
You must be wondering by now -- how in the world could this one be made into 'good for you' and the 'best thing since sliced bread', too, which, you already suspect, it somehow will become if you only follow that white rabbit for just few more hops. After all, aren't there all the 'bad guys' from ROS and PAHs to glycotoxins, AGE, RAGE,... even radioactive Polonium 210 among the 4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, damaging DNA and killing 400,000 American smokers every year, along with another 40,000 innocent Americans via SHS, costing American taxpayers $40 billions annually in lost productivity alone,... (is that just me or is someone at CDC, ACS, ASH, NCI, FDA, EPA, NIH,... missing few keys on their numeric keypads; if I may be of help folks, here, have some of mine: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Anything we ingest into our bodies be it foods, beverages, supplements... or tobacco smoke, before it can be used, must first be broken down via cellular metabolic processes (catabolism) into more elemental organic compounds such as amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids, monosacharides,... The internal enzymes which chop and slice the larger organic molecules we ingest, operate inside our cells, and Murphy's laws being universal, can do, and continuously do, the same damage to our own cellular infrastructure, DNA included, which in turn is continuously being repaired and replenished,... that's all a routine day's work for the cellular biochemical networks.
The main difference in the catabolic phase of our metabolism of tobacco smoke vs, say, that of a bowl of healthy salad, goes overwhelmingly in favor of tobacco smoke. Namely, much of the chopping and slicing of the cells and large organic molecules from tobacco leaf happens not only safely outside of our cells, but well outside of our body, while those of the salad leaf get chopped and sliced inside our cells, with all the damage that goes with it. The difference here is analogous to buying a package of pork chops at the supermarket and taking them home, versus buying a pig from a farm, slaughtering the pig in the kitchen, skinning it, then carving the pork chops out of it. Which one will cause more damage and mess to the kitchen and more bites, cuts,... to the cook?
The next difference, in the quantity of ingested matter that needs to metabolized, of foods vs tobacco smoke, is another no contest, since the 100 mg of tobacco smoke matter per pack is dwarfed by the thousands times greater quantities of matter ingested via foods daily. Following the hops from the response to your concern (i), you already realize that this thousandfold+ ratio in quantities, is further greatly amplified by the appetite suppressing and immune boosting effects of tobacco smoke, resulting in the pure and huge net gain for the reduction of cellular damages from the catabolic processes.
''Yes, but what about the ROS, glycotoxins, AGE,... in the tobacco smoke? They are surely hazardous, damaging DNA, producing oxidative stress, and all that...'' I can almost hear the mantras of an antismoking scare monger, as he grasps at the last few straws.
To see through this 'pinhole view' sleight of hand of the antismoking scare mongers, we need to widen the pinhole and recall that the our metabolism produces oxidative and mutagenic stresses as a part of its routine catabolic work, producing energy in the little cellular furnaces, mitochondria, and synthesizing the needed larger organic molecules throughout the cell and its network of organelles. This process operates like some unimaginably complex, and even more unimaginably miniaturized, pharmaceutical factory with all its power plants and production lines, operating at full throttle in every cell, all day and night, with all the toxic wastes and byproducts that go with any such vast production discharged right there inside the cell, dwarfing by many orders of magnitude the minuscule amounts of the similar pro-oxidant organic compounds ingested in tobacco smoke.
In terms of the total amount of oxidative and glycotoxic stresses, a honey roasted peanut, by the time it is fully metabolized and finally burned off as energy in the mitochondria, would likely exceed that introduced via the 100 mg smoke matter from a pack of cigarettes (which was largely oxidized outside and well before it reached our cells).
As always, our miracle medicine is honed so perfectly that it doesn't leave, without tidying it all up, even that tiny excess of the waste products. First, the appetite reduction alone due to smoking, compensates manyfold the already minuscule amount of the ingested pro-oxidants. Second, the ROS molecules, which are generated in every cell during normal oxidative metabolism, are neutralized chiefly by our internal enzymes, superoxide dismutase and catalase, the very ones that our biochemical miracle, tobacco smoke, just happens to upregulate to nearly double levels (note that this is a finding of hard science, in the lab and free of the usual epidemiology confounding; interestingly, selegiline, which is used for smoking cessation due to the very similar selective MAO B inhibition, also the upregulates SOD and catalase).
To put it all in even larger perspective, live cells have been ingesting and metabolizing oxidated organic molecules since the dawn of life on Earth, for hundreds millions of years. The very primordial soup where, couple billion years ago, the first life on Earth was conjured, intelligently or otherwise, by the lightening strikes into the rich organic broth, consisted of the same kind of "scary" organic molecules that a burned bit of a dried tobacco leaf will generate today. If live cells have learned by now how to do anything safely at all, that would be it -- the metabolizing of the most basic stuff of life which they have been enjoying since the days they began feasting on the primordial soup.
Anti-climactically, I add that the answer to--
I assume you mean to say that "15%-20% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers". As it is written, it sounds like smokers are only half as likely to get lung cancer as never smokers. --
is yes. I meant what you said, not what I mis-said.
:
Dave: the stronger the asociation, the more likely it is to end up being true too.
By that logic, the stronger correlations on self-selected subjects, without accounting for the causes and effects of that self-selection, would lead us, for example, to conclude that wearing bras causes breast cancer beyond the shadow of any doubt, since the subjects who wear bras have 12500 times greater risk of breast cancer than subjects who don't wear bras. But, as soon as we examine the causes and effects of the 'wearing bra' parameter, the causal role of bras in breast cancer disappears completely.
Therefore, the key question is what exactly is that "it" that is being made more likely true by strenghtening TS-LC correlations? As explained earlier, the statistical observations on self-selected smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers that "it" can be only a composite hypothesis that one or more of the following is more likely true:
(a) Smoking causes LC
(b) Smoking is protective against carcinogens which themselves cause LC (hence those more exposed to them would smoke more since smoking would alleviate some effects of such exposure)
(c) Smoking and LC have overlapped causes in some combination of genetic & environmental factors (e.g. some such dual effect genes were found recently; environmental: e.g. chronic stress, socioeconomic hardships...).
The correlation observed on self-selected subjects, which doesn't model, measure and quantitatively account for the causes of that self-selection, or the other effects of those causes and their place in the etiology of the LC (itself largely a mystery), has no rational basis, no matter how strong the correlation, to claim exclusion of the self-medication hypothesis (b) or the overlapped causes hypothesis (c).
There are also plenty of facts of hard science regarding the protective effects of tobacco smoke (especially the beneficial immune system effects), which provide concrete scientific basis for that confounding. Additionally, the animal experiments, which are completely free of the self-selection confounding, show unambiguously that smoking substantially extends the lifespan of the animals, contradicting directly the "harm" hypothesis (a), while supporting the self-medication hypothesis (b).
Invoking Ockham's Razor and declaring: Hypothesis (a) must be true because it is the "simplest explanation", doesn't work any more for (a) since the explanation must be the simplest one that accounts for all known relevant facts (including the hard science facts above), not just the hand picked few facts that support the desired "simplest" explanation (a). Otherwise, we could start taxing and banning bras in public places, including beaches, to save American children, the future of this country, from the plague of breast cancer.
Finally, the most telling of all, as to what we are really dealing with here in antismoking "science", is the meta-fact, that sixty years into the antismoking "science", this "science" religiously persists in remaining completely blind to the obvious self-selection confounding, refusing to even acknowledge existence, let alone quantify and account for the causes of that self-selection and their role in the etiology of LC. Even more "mysteriously" it remains very quiet throughout about the highly relevant (for the causes of the self-selection), the solid facts of hard science, the animal experiments directly refuting the "harm" dogma (a) and the protective effects of tobacco smoking, further strongly supporting the self-medication model (b).
Compelling stuff, nightlight, but I have a couple of objections.
In terms of the total amount of oxidative and glycotoxic stresses, a honey roasted peanut, by the time it is fully metabolized and finally burned off as energy in the mitochondria, would likely exceed that introduced via the 100 mg smoke matter from a pack of cigarettes (which was largely oxidized outside and well before it reached our cells).
The difference surely is that the honey roasted peanut arrives in the intestinal tract where it is sawn up into its component sugars, amino acids, etc, before subsequent re-assembly within cells. By contrast the 100 mg of smoke matter is mostly deposited in lungs which aren't equipped with the industrial scale wrecking and recycling hardware of the intestinal tract.
By analogy the first is like an old computer which is taken to a recycling plant which strips and separates its components, while the other is the old computer lying rusting in the back yard for the next 25 years, gradually leaking toxins - lead, mercury, etc -.
If you pursue this chain through the next natural step, you realize that tobacco smoke suppresses appetite, reducing your daily food intake (by 10-20 percent), with all the agricultural junk that goes with it, by 2-3 orders of magnitude larger quantity than the 100 mg ingested from a pack of cigarettes.
Food intake is surely not entirely determined by appetite, but principally by the energy requirements of human metabolism. Someone who is moderately active may well be using energy at a rate of about 100 watts, which works out at 8.64 MJ/day (about 2000 kcalories/day). A food intake that is any less than this will result in the human body starting to break down stored fats to make up for the energy shortfall - starving. And a food intake that is greater than this will result in fat deposits being laid down - glut and obesity. Appetite is a regulatory mechanism that kicks in when the human body is receiving too little food energy, and which shuts down when it's getting too much. If smoking reduces appetite, it must be changing this regulatory mechanism to kick in at lower levels of starvation and glut. The result will be that smokers will store less fat, but may actually be continuously slightly starving themselves. Despite the current fad for ultra-thin physical 'fitness', is that really such a good thing?
Hi, Christopher Snowdon,
no biggy.
I was just very impressed with your site and wanted to know if I could use the odd quote from it when the appropriate situation came up, especially regarding your section on SIDS.
But, with any luck, you'll hang around and keep that situation covered.
Anonymous, Rose,
thanks for the comfort - you probably do know how much difference that makes.
Although it sounds pretty silly to have writers like you two say something like that when the reverse is so true.
But nothing's nicer than nice people, and the feeling behind it was certainly was.
And congrats, Rose, on the bouncing baby tobacco plants - worth their weight as Virginia Gold.
I hope you have a fierce guard cat, dog or ferret for protection.
Even a camel, lol.
Rose, Idlex, whoever,
some time back when we (or me, with this computer)had had a problem with comments having completely vanished - not even the 'comment' symbol under Dr. Siegel's articles, I did go back and save a number of comments, predominately Roses, being scared they'd 'softly and silently vanish away' forever.
They may be the same as have been already collected, (or not suitable, as I just copied some of whatever seemed most interesting/likely to be forgotten if lost and there are many other people's comments/info on as well) and I'm not sure about this 'puter (might be getting fixed up tonight or tomorrow, toes crossed,) and I don't know how to get URLs for single comments, either, but if all goes well and I can assemble these, (stored jumbled, en masse and in no listed order or ID - take time to sort through them - and that would be as copied comments with URLs for the thread, not individual) where should I send them?
Though if it's just the nicotinic acid ones, you probably have the few I do.
I was going to get them sorted a bit before asking, but there's been this 'puter slow-down thing and I've got nothing done on anything.
Harry,
no problem. I did feel badly thinking that you'd thought I'd intended to make you feel badly,(can I say that, or does Woody Allen hold the patent?) but considering how much abuse we encounter, it's not too surprising if sometimes the odd misunderstanding occurs because we're sensitized to and expecting negative comments. All better now.
nightlight - thanks - what a great resource - and what fabulous info you scatter like - like - like - almost a light shining in the night, somehow.
In case anybody hasn't yet seen this,
Andrew has posted some interesting info on one of the potential RIP chemicals.
Oddly, the Haloscan comment board didn't have the URL at the top, just an extra-wide blue border with a sort of uncopy-able url up there, but it's just back under;
'More Junk Science from Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to Promote FDA Tobacco Legislation'
That particular chemical does fit some of the symptoms produced by (variable) RIPs in Canada right now: ethylene-vinyl acetate.
As the information he provides shows, ethylene is a hormone - i.e. endocrine disruptor, joined with vinyl acetate and I've put some ATSDR info on vinyl acetate in behind, which is all I've so far found that I can access.
That chemical, listed on a patent for RIP, is ciliatoxic, and causes inhalant lung, larynx and nasal epithilium damage, among other things.
Joined with a potent endocrine disruptor, it could conceivably make all the anti nonsense true, of the anti-enforced RIP cigarette.
I'm been having some computer slow-down problems and have to get a few things finished and out of the way before doing any intensive searches, but I'd suggest checking that out and perhaps everyone pooling whatever information on RIP they may have or come across?
Have to run as scheduled defrag about to occur.
But, wow! great thread!!!
Ellen
No,I have an escort cat, who escorts visitors round the garden,everyone is so interested to see the plant growing in England, and green leaves are valueless.
I am so pleased to have discovered that the "black tar" in tobacco, is an amino acid in the sap that turns black when exposed to air,and that it is used to produce dark hair and suntans in humans.
That was really bothering me, because I've noticed that there is an element of truth, however warped, in everything they say.
Charlatans..
idlexThe difference surely is that the honey roasted peanut arrives in the intestinal tract where it is sawn up into its component sugars, amino acids, etc, before subsequent re-assembly within cells. By contrast the 100 mg of smoke matter is mostly deposited in lungs which aren't equipped with the industrial scale wrecking and recycling hardware of the intestinal tract.
Let's first keep in mind that 100mg of tobacco smoke matter ingested (for pack a day of cigaretes rated at 20mg tar, which nowdays is the high tar cigs) is less than 1/3 of aspirin pill. That's the quantity of TS matter discussed.
The inner surface of the lungs is ~100 m^2 (imagine 1/3 of aspirin spread across, highly uniformly) , while the intestinal surface is ~300 m^2. You will take daily about ~10000 larger quantity of matter through foods & drinks to be absorbed by ~3 times larger area.
Note also that say 1/2 peanut that ammounts to ~100mg of food matter won't distribute nearly as uniformly (being solid & liquid in the intestina) in the intestina as will the smoke matter in the lungs.
As to whether lungs were 'meant to' (in the evolutionary sense) handle smoke -- yep, the oxidated organic matter has been metabolized by the cellular biochemical networks for hundreds of millions of years. The life itself was spawned in such lightening burned oganic broth. Pre-oxidated matter results in lower oxidative load and is easier for cells to meatabolize, results in less cell damage than taking in live cells (as you do in a blueberry or a salad leaf, which require much heavier biochemical gear to break down).
Reduce now all that, already 10000 times lower load, by lowered appetite effect, then account for near doubling of key antioxidant & detox enzymes by tobacco smoke, and there is no context, not even close.
Take for example glycotoxins and AGE (advance glycation end products), the "bad guy" from tobacco smoke (blamed for supposed skin & tissue aging, inflammatory lung damage, diabetes...). A bit of probing beyond the AGE "horrors", reveals that AGE in very low quantities (as delievered in tobacco smoke) do exactly the opposite:
------- QUOTE
''Our data show that dicarbonyls at low millimolar and sub-millimolar
concentrations can stimulate the expression of the phase II
detoxification system in both a reporter cell line and primary rat
hepatocytes. In addition, our results provide evidence that they can
also attenuate the pro-inflammatory response to TNFα exposure in a
reporter cell line. These novel findings suggest that dicarbonyls can
have beneficial effects in cellular systems when used at low
concentrations. At higher concentrations, dicarbonyls showed some
toxicity, depending on the cell system used.
Although high dicarbonyl concentrations were needed to stimulate phase
II enzyme gene expression in hepatocytes, the concentration of
dicarbonyls that actually reached the cytoplasm to exert their action
is not known. Extracellularly added dicarbonyls could react with
proteins on the cell surface or membrane lipids, and it is likely that
only a fraction of the original concentration may have reached the
cytoplasm. Intracellular steady-state dicarbonyl levels were estimated
to be in the low micromolar range. Because the biologically relevant
dicarbonyls are most likely formed intracellularly from glucose
metabolism and breakdown, it appears realistic to suggest that these
dicarbonyls could induce protective responses to toxic insults, especially
under conditions of physiological stress. The concept that
toxicants at low concentrations could stimulate protection whereas
high concentrations are toxic is often referred to as hormesis.20 ''
------ END QUOTE
idlex, the link above, to the quote on the protective effects of low dose AGE, got somehow mangled. Here is the correct link.
Rose, my parents grew a tobacco plant in their south-facing Devon conservatory, along with a vine that produces lovely grapes each year. My parents have passed away now, but both the vine and the tobacco plant live on, largely untended, their roots extending into the ground outside the conservatory which is always rather moist.
At least, I think it's a tobacco plant. I just took a look at it. It's still going strong. It's in flower right now, with trumpet-like pale yellow flowers with 5 petals, edged with green. The large leaves gradually widen as they leave the plant stem, before rounding off fairly rapidly at the tip. I dried one last year, and rolled it into a cigarette. It was rather bitter.
Ellen, if you have disconnected fragments they probably won't be of much use to us. We're trawling through the comments pulling out Rose's, and 'replanting' them in Rose's Garden on forces.org. Rose is invited to this garden, of course.
Yup, it's pretty definitely a tobacco plant. The flowers are very like this one, but the petals on mine are much more pointed, although on close inspection they're all gently rounded at the tips. And the petals are all fused together at their base.
Another interesting bit of trivia on the "scary" AGE in tobacco smoke -- last year it was brought up by someone and discussed in more detail in the mentioned nootropics forum thread. Near the end of AGE discussion, I hypothesized based on spontaneous self-medication model of smoking (relying on some facts about the boost of insuline sensitivity by TS, which are protective and therapeutic in diabetes) that in the low dose as delivered in tobacco smoke, AGE will have protective and beneficial effects, which will be precisely opposite from those claimed by the antismoking scare mongers in the paper discussed (see hypothesis H2, posted in April 2007). Nearly exactly a year later, in April 2008 issue of NAS, this AGE paper quoted above comes out and confirms (this is result of hard science, not of epidemiology) almost to the letter the 'protective effect' hypothesis H2.
idlex
Take a look and see if you can spot it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat...egory:
Nicotiana
At the moment I am just observing the plant to see how it works,everyday a new insight, I wish I had done this years ago,its great fun.
Grows like a rocket with huge leaves, about to flower in about a week at a guess.
However, as
"Nicotiana (tobacco) is a genus of 21 to 67 species of perenial herbs and shrubs, including many subspecies, strains and cultivars, characterized by large fleshy leaves and numerous sticky hairs. Various species are used as ornamentals, insecticides, and for smoking"
And they all seem to be called tobacco.
I'd make very sure that you know what it is before you smoke anything.
nightlight,
If over time, women quit wearing bras as much, and their overall incidence of breast cacner declined...then what? my point about time trends......
yes ! you do test a hypothesis as many DIFFERENT ways as possible.
if all the observable phenomona support the hypothesis it is more likely to be true.
the hypothesis bras cause BC would be ruled out if women's use of bras delined but time trends of BC did not.
As to whether lungs were 'meant to' (in the evolutionary sense) handle smoke -- yep, the oxidated organic matter has been metabolized by the cellular biochemical networks for hundreds of millions of years. The life itself was spawned in such lightening burned oganic broth. - nightlight
Thinking about it a bit more, air is always carrying particles of one sort or other, ranging from fine grains of sand to pollen and small insects. The human nasal passages don't seem to be a very efficient air filter so much as an air conditioner that raises cold air to a higher temperature (although I may be wrong). Regardless of whether there is smoke in the air, there will always be plenty of other material which will be inhaled. However...
the lung is a self-cleansing and sterile organ with the ability to isolate and eradicate invading microorganisms. [1]
The lung has an efficient self-cleansing mechanism referred to as the mucociliary escalator [2]
Tracheobronchial clearance: The mucous layer covering the trecheobronchial tree is moved upwards by the beating of the underlying cilia. This mucosiliary excalator transports deposited particles and particle-laden macrophages upwards to the oropharynx, where they are swallowed and pass through the GI tract. Macrociliary clearance is relatively rapid in healthy individuals and is completed within 24 to 48 h for particles deposited in the lower airways. Infaction and other injuries can greatly impait clearance.
Pulmonary clearance: There are several primary ways by which particulate material is removed from the lower respiratory tract once it has been deposited:
1. Particles may be directly trapped on the fluid layer of the conducting airways by impaction and cleared upward in the trecheobronchial tree via the mucociliary escalator.
2. Particles may be phagocytized by macrophages and cleared via the mucociliary escalator.
3. Particles may be phagocytized by alveolar macrophages and removed via the lymphatic drainage.
4. Material may dissolve from the surface of particles and be removed via the bloodstream or lymphatics.
5. Small particles may directly penetrate epithelial membranes.
Minutes after particles are inhaled, they may be found in alveolar macrohages. Many alveolar macrophages are ultimately transported to the mucociliary escalator. It is possible that macrophages are carried to the bronchioles with the alveolar fluid that contributes to the fluid layer in the airways. Other particles may be sequestered in the lung for very long periods, often in the macrophages located in the interstitium. [3]
It sounds from this that lungs have several ways of self-cleaning.
And it raises once again the question of whether smokers' lungs are black with tar. Antismokers always portray them thus, but some people say that they are indistinguishable from nonsmokers' lungs. I've never found a satisfactory answer to this.
If over time, women quit wearing bras as much, and their overall incidence of breast cacner declined...then what? my point about time trends......
First, in the eyeglasses-sunburn example, that kind of phenomenon would likely happen since without sunglasses people would tend to avoid sun exposure. Even with bra-BC example, one could conceive that massive return to non-bra fashion, could indicate as a marker the more general 'return to nature' mindset, which would also bring in more natural, healthier nutrition, less estrogen "therapy", more sunlight & vitamin D,... which themselves could lower BC rates. In either example, it is obvious that the causes of the change in wearing sunglasses of bras are the key in explaining the trends. Only in the antismoking "science" the causes of the self-selection (such as immuno-protective effects of TS) of the subjects studied are an apparent taboo for the epidemiologists.
Second, with TS-LC correlations, the number of 'tobacco smoke particle' + 'lung cells' interactions in the country declined by factor 4-6 since 1950, yet the number of LC cases per year (supposedly caused largely by those TS-particle+'lung cell' interactions) per year is 8 times greater today than in 1950.
While one can massage stats and contrive a convenient pinhole through which one can see an apparent decline of some derived LC figure, the relevant count (of all tobacco particle+lung cell interactions in USA) declined at least fourfold since 1950, while the total number of LC cases, caused allegedly by such interactions, grew eightfold.
That doesn't look good for your theory (a): TC causes LC. If you were to go to a CEO of a car company, showing this great Chinese ultra-fire-safe gas tank design (analogous to reduced smoking) which, after being implemented in 1950s on 3/4 of the cars in China, resulted in 8 times more gas tank fires every year in China, I doubt he would listen to your suggestion that if he would squint a bit, tilt his head 30 degrees to the right and look right there at that spot, he would see a tiny decline in the 'adjusted tank fires' the last year of the test period.
Finally, as explained before, even if you had a perfect match of the two curves without any fudging of the figures, which you don't, that match still doesn't imply what you say it implies (TS causes LC, in part or otherwise). Namely, you can't ignore the very strong confounding (the causes of self-selection, via the immino-protective effects of TS, supporting self-medication model) or the animal experiments over decades (consistently showing that smoking extends lifespan), where the "harm" hypothesis (a) is outright falsified. You have to account for all known data, especially the hard science data, not just restrict your evaluation to the cherry picked subset of the much weaker data arising from the soft science of statistical correlations on self-selected subjects.
Insisting on hypothesis (a) in that manner (by deliberately ignoring the much stronger data of hard science, immune effects of TS & animal experiments, since they go the "wrong" way, while insisting on a particular iterpretation of the soft & fuzzy stats) resembles the Italian inquisitors refusing to look through the Galileo's telescope, and merely repeating their particular interpretation of much softer 'data' from the Bible as their proof of geocentrism.
Rose, the nearest one is Nicotiana Alata It's certainly very like this photo, with the long thin pipe bit (don't know the name for this) between petals and plant stem. V. delicate. It looks like the prettiest of the tobacco flowers.
nightlight...LC peaks about 40 years after smoking peaks,that's a plausible incubation period. so, I dispute when you say I don't have plausibility.
you speak of counfounding effects, in the sun glasses example, and the bra use example.
but the bottom line is if you knew time trends on bra use and BC were separated by a good estimate of incubation period for BC, and that was reproducible,and breast size was not a counfounder, wouldn't you at least let women know there may be a risk so they could make an informed decision?
That's my point about public health policy made much earlier. while still a hypothesis, just how certain does one have to be to take action? and what action should be taken? my point was it's OK to warn smokers, but not to launch a war on smoking including faked data to try to eliminate smoking in public places.
idlex
That is indeed very pretty.
I might grow some in the herbaceous border next year.
That's my point about public health policy made much earlier. while still a hypothesis, just how certain does one have to be to take action?
There would be no problem if the force of the policy were even remotely commensurate with the strength of the scientific findings. The problem arose when the soft and fuzzy epidemiological data were reshaped into iron fist of the state for battering smokers through the oppressive economic extortion, vicious psychological castigation and unabashed social discrimination, the likes of which were not seen in the western world since 1930s.
The "scientists" involved, starting with Doll & Hill, would have made sure, were we dealing with real science, that their weak and ambiguous epidemiological findings (which on their own are equally consistent with any of the models (a), (b) or (c)) weren't misinterpreted by the media, politicians and bureaucrats, by publicly and loudly refuting them when the latter declared 'debate is over' (meaning epidemiology proves model (a)). Instead, these "scientists" joined and led the hysteria themselves (for a buck, as always), knowing well their data doesn't mean what they are publicly claiming it does.
BIRD'S EYE VIEW: Antismoking "science" is a pseudo-scientific cover and psychological warfare tool for the underlying economic war by the pharmaceutical industry, waged through its bought proxies from "health" bureaucracies, "health" industry, academic mercenaries, "grass roots" antismoking loud-mouth groups, numerous disease "support" groups, politicians and its "philanthropic" tax shelters/agitprop tentacles (such as Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), against a potent, highly beneficial medicinal miracle plant, tobacco. While the pharma is battling all other folk remedies and supplements for the same economic reasons, its war against tobacco is the most vicious one, since tobacco is by far the most beneficial of them all. The sooner the smokers become aware of the insidious nature of this psychological and economic warfare on them, the sooner will this parasitic enterprise collapse.
nightlight
I think we may also be the planned distraction, if they can get a quarter of the world to give up an ancient herb that they enjoy, scooping up the rest should be a breeze.
We could do with an update on what else is likely to suddenly disappear, while attention has been diverted.
nightlight...
counting Lc cases is not enough -the age spectrum of the population has to be accounted for. this is what age adjustment means.
although total # of LC cases is higher now, the ODDS a male in the age group where LC usually occurs, of developing LC, were actually higher in 1985-1990 time-span. that is to say the incidence was higher back then.
this is probably up-shifted from the theoretical because smoking acts synergistically with other pouultants.
If you look at the number of older ameicans now, and divide by the number of LC cases, you will see the incidence is falling.
if you look at the Harris, paper, that male age group was the heaviest smoking group. Same pattern follows for women, but since women's smoking history peak occurred later, so did their age adjusted incidence , which was approx year 2000.
this does not mean smoking can't have any theraputic value. It may. BUT IT ALSO CAUSES LUNG CANCER.
My paper alone does not prove smoking causes LC, but taken in conjunction with all the epi reports, (none of which ever found smoking does not casue LC)and again the number of pack years, the does response, the fact those who quit have intermediate incidence enforce that, the probability is very high it does.
I am not going to waste anymore time debating this.... you smoke? fine, but don't be in denial that you are elevating your risk of developing LC.
Dave K, you say the debate is over? Where have I heard THAT statement before?
This is WAY far from over, just because you may refuse to debate the point anymore.
Until and unless you can provide the smoking gun (pun intended), your observations are just those, observations, and you haven't begun to remove all of the possible confounders that may exist in the data you have had access to, for that matter, there is still the debate of how much of that "data" is real and true data, considering the sources for MOST of that data, I truly believe that is a valid confounder that has NOT been accounted for.
nightlight wrote:
"Insisting on hypothesis (a) in that manner (by deliberately ignoring the much stronger data of hard science, immune effects of TS & animal experiments, since they go the "wrong" way..."
In all that you've written here, have you explained why, if "Smoking is good for you", smokers are more likely to get lung cancer and emphysema than nonsmokers? Or are you saying they don't?
Dave didn't say the debate was over... just that he felt he'd made his point and wasn't going to debate it any more himself. I share his skepticism of the critics of the smoking/LC link, but also feel that nightlight and others here have made some good points and made them well. Heh... as a long time hippie-ish smoker, I'd certainly LIKE for it to be shown that excess showering was the real cause of LC! :>
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Lung cancer correlates well with smoking. But I always thought that correlation is not causation. Dave K seems to be saying that correlation is causation.
Smoking is simply one of the risk factors (what's a better word to use?) for lung cancer. Others include exposure to radioactive particles or gases, asbestos, living in towns, genetic predisposition. If it's possible to say that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, wouldn't it be proper to also say that radioactive particles and asbestos, etc, CAUSE lung cancer as well. In short, why pick just one of the risk factors - smoking -, and say that this is the one that causes lung cancer, while letting all the other risk factors remain as contributory factors. If people are to avoid getting lung cancer, shouldn't they be advised to avoid radioactive materials, asbestos, live outside towns and away from roads, avoid alcohol, carrots, sweet potatoes, and above all take care to not be born into a family with a history of cancer - and not just stop smoking?
''In all that you've written here, have you explained why, if "Smoking is good for you", smokers are more likely to get lung cancer and emphysema than nonsmokers? Or are you saying they don't?''
James Austin |
I have posted a few dozen posts up, the CDC statistics of who gets lung cancer, and those who do get it are mostly former smokers. Current smokers and never smokers are almost at the same percentage levels.
I have pointed out that the CDC considers a former smoker anyone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and Ann has posted links to that CDC definition.
Does anyone on this forum believe that anyone who has smoked 101 cigarettes in their lifetime has put themselves to a significant risk of getting lung cancer more than a never smoker?
If not, why are they lumping former smokers of any no. of cigarettes over 100 with smokers when they present us with their fear mongering statistics ?
This fact alone has me doubting all of the statistical ''science''. In order to draw any real time trend conclusions, lung cancer victims should be segregated at least in categories such as heavy smokers, occasional smokers, very occasional smokers and their age. Lumping ex smokers with smokers to scare us with the 85% LC statistics, especially when we know what their definition of former smokers and smokers is, to me is called skewing the figures to meet with their agenda.
Rose, I hope that, in keeping with the spirit of the times, you have segregated your tobacco plants from other plants in a well-ventilated area - preferably with hurricane force winds blowing through it.
I think it can only be a matter of time before HMG will soon be issuing regulations making it illegal for members of the nicotine-bearing nightshade family - potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, etc - to be grown adjacent to innocuous, non-nicotine plants, and for them only to be sold outside greengrocers, rather than sharing the racks inside with other vegetables. I worry about the greengrocers who have to pick them up and weigh them and pack them all day. Thousands of them must be dying as a result, after all. Perhaps customers should weigh and pack them themselves outside.
I also worry about children who might catch sight of potatoes, and get ideas. So I think that potatoes and tomatoes should not be displayed openly, but kept in plain brown paper containers, and put on top shelves, out of sight.
And if restaurant customers insist on having chips with their fish, I feel it's only right that they be made to eat the chips - and tomato ketchup, of course - outside, so as to not pose a health risk to other customers. So while salt and pepper pots would still be found on restaurant tables, tomato ketchup bottles would hang from pieces of string in the porch.
The further logical thing to do, in my view, would be to segregate these foods from others on the plate, rather than heaping them all promiscuously together, or, worse still, blending them together in sauces. The segregated plates might have printed helpful government warnings on the nicotine area saying,"ONLY TO BE EATEN OUTSIDE." In fact, given that graphic new warnings are becoming fashionable, I can think of nothing more educational for a consumer of a plate of roast potatoes and sautéd tomatoes and green peppers than for him to clear his plate to reveal a hideous cancerous mouth grinning out at him from the porcelain beneath.
Iro,
Smoking rates drop as age goes up. The older the population you look at the less likely they are to still smoke. And the older the population the more likely they are to get cancer. Therefore, I'd expect to see many former smokers getting lung cancer...they're older than most current smokers.
James Austin: In all that you've written here, have you explained why, if "Smoking is good for you", smokers are more likely to get lung cancer and emphysema than nonsmokers? Or are you saying they don't?
If you go over my posts to 'Dave K' above, I have explained it. In short, tobacco smoke is a potent medicine (tonic for immune & nervous system, nootropic, life-extending youth elixir). That is a fact of hard science from numerous experiments (see the links I posted in this thread).
Therefore, like any medicine, be it a folk remedy or a prescription drug, it will be statistically associated with the health problems caused by the very substances against which it is protective or therapeutic.
For example, if you pick a sample of males age 60 and asked them about their use of statins, but you ignore or fail to account for the cause of their statin use, then check them a year later, you would find that those who used statins that year had more heart attacks than statins non-users (since statins are prescribed to those at risk of or with existent cardio-vascular problems). Further, among the statins users, those on higher dose would have more heart attacks than those on lower dose (since the high dose users must have had higher "bad" cholesterol). Of course, the "paradox" vanishes as soon as you account for the reasons people would use statins (to protect against heart attack, by lowering "bad" cholesterol). Hence, the underlying causes that classify people into statin users and statin non-users are highly relevant in interpreting what statistical association on non-randomized subjects mean. Statins are here simply a statistical marker of those with heart attack risks, not necessarily a cause of heart attacks.
The antismoking "science" doesn't operate like regular science. In the above 'statins use' example, the antismoking "scientist" would deliberately refuse to look into, alone account for, the reasons people use statins (for their cholesterol lowering effect) and declare that 'heart attacks are statins related disease' (true, with a grain of salt), and from that they would equivocate into a "conclusion" 'therefore statins cause heart attacks' (that doesn't follow) and that the 'evidence is overwhealming, debate is over'.
Similarly, for for the effects of smoking, the antismoking "scientists" are deliberately silent about numerous protective effects of tobacco smoke, and "studies" never quantify and take these effects into account when examing associations between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases. Even more "strange" is that they are also extremely silent about the fact that in numerous animal experiments conducted over the last six decades, the smoking animals live longer, which directly contradicts their "harm" theory of tobacco smoking. In other words antismoking "science" is a scam (making a nice chunk of change for those perpetrating it, while harming health of smokers).
Unlike prescription drugs, tobacco smoking is a form of self-medication. Most teens or young adults try smoking, or are at least exposed to tobacco smoke in their social circles. For some TS provides no noticable beneficial effect, hence they are more likely to discontinue or not start, especially under the present antismoking hysteria. About 20-30 percent, including people with naturally under-powerd immune system (such as those having low detox rates), will perceive tangible benefit, relief of their symptoms (especially if they are exposed to substances/infections which can overload their immune system), and will start smoking or evolve the teenage experimentation into a smoking habit. At the same time, whatever challenge/hardship has caused them to perceive the benefit of smoking, may continue doing damage (e.g. something not covered, or not covered completely, by the protective effects of smoking), leading to 'smoking related' diseases years later.
Theerefore, the antismoking pressures will increase the proportion of smokers who use smoking as self-medication, since those who don't perceive noticable benefit will be pressured by the hysteria (and financial costs) to quit or not start smoking as a regular habit. Consequently, the statistical associations between smoking and 'smoking related' diseases, would strenghten as the antismoking pressures rise. That strenghtening of associations phenomenon (predicted by the self-medication model), is precisely what is happening with the associations, be it by following the statistics in USA over decades of increase in antismoking pressures, or by looking the different strengths of association among different nations with different levels of antismoking pressures.
James,
I understand. However what bothers me is the definition of a former smoker, namely that the questionnaire to classify one as a former smoker is ''have you smoked more than 100 cigarettes in your lifetime and you no longer smoke'' ? If any given person has smoked more than 5 20 packs at 18 and is now 76 and has lung cancer, it is automatically computed as a smoking related lung cancer. How much sense does this make ?
Also current smokers' definition is anyone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and still smokes. In other words if a person smokes 1 cigarette per week and has been smoking for two years and still smokes and gets lung cancer, it is also considered a smoking related LC.
To me this makes very little sense.
Iro, to be fair to the researchers, they had to come up with *some* sort of definition of "former smoker" and I would imagine that if someone just smoked 5 or 10 a day throughout their college and post-college years and then you asked them at age 50 if they'd smoked more than 1,000 that half of them would say no. I also believe that several of the various smoking/LC studies *did* attempt to separate such things as light smoking, moderate smoking, heavy smoking, smoking with various levels of inhalation etc.
One of the counters to the smoking/LC argument that's often raised is that at least one or two of the studies showed theoretical "non-inhalers" getting similar rates of lung cancer as "inhalers". The trick here is to remember that any individual study is just an individual study and can be flawed or just "unlucky" in many different ways. One of the strengths we have in arguing against the smoking/ETS nonsense is that so many of the studies done show virtually no harm or even some benefit from ETS exposure. If I'm remembering my own analysis done from the 1964 and 1979 SGRs correctly very few smoking/LC studies, no matter what corrections they attempted, found anything except a strong statistical relation.
Statistical relation is NOT causation necessarily. People getting water from the town pump MAY be getting diptheria from a local breed of mosquito that breeds in the puddle next to that pump rather than from the water. BUT... if you've thought to check for that and rule it out....
As far as I'm aware, while there's always the possibility of the simple bandwagon effect having driven many of the post Doll/Hill results, there's no clear and strong driving force for an incorrect conclusion in the way that there is for ETS. The potential power of the ETS/disease link in terms of achieving the "public health goal" of reducing smoking, has driven researchers to design their studies and bias their results and interpretations to support that link. I'll even go further than that: given the thinking on how widespread the fabrication of research is when motivated by purely selfish financial motives, just THINK of how widespread such fabrication must be in the field of ETS where the researchers can salve their consciences with the balsam that they're lying "for the greater good."
But when you see how easily a purely statistical 3% drop can be transmuted in the public eye into a damning 40% drop - who needs data fabrication anymore?
:/
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Michael,
Please don't get me wrong, I am not convinced one way or the other. However I simply can't let go by these anomalies especially that in the commentary of the statistics from the CDC that I gave several posts above (no longer posted at the AMA unfortunately) specifically stated that a former smoker is anyone that has smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.
I would be most interested to see one of the studies that segregates very heavy, heavy, light etc... smokers and compare the risk factors. If you have one that you can point me to, I would appreciate.
As far as I am concerned, the only time I have seen statistics of smokers segregated from former smokers is on that CDC statistical table that I can't reproduce here but that I have shown some figures above. Anything else I have seen states that 85% of cancers occur on smokers (lumping of course former and current smokers together).
Here's how certain factors modified in SAM can change the statistics. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cg.../161/8/787/
TBL3
On one particular modification there was a 20,000 difference in mortality rates.
Changing the definition of a former smoker from 100 cigarettes in a lifetime to 1 cigarette in a lifetime, increases the mortality by 5,3. Imagine the difference it would make if they actually segregated the different types of former and current smokers from occasional, light, heavy etc... But then of course if they presented us with these adjusted figures it would defeat their zero tolerance message, wouldn't it?
Nightlight wrote:
"If you go over my posts to 'Dave K' above, I have explained it."
I was really preferring to have a simple yes or no. I really hate reading long posts. But thanks anyway.
Iro,
I agree the 100-200 cigarettes makes someone a smoker is idiotic, but as MJM pointed out, some anyway break it down in their surveys.
I don't know if you've ever been to the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital website before, but they have devised a calculator using their own patient records to show how many cigarettes over how many years affects the chances of getting lung cancer. It's downloadable.
idlex
Oh dear, I have been thoughtless haven't I?
Currently, the tobacco plants are backed with tall purple blue delphiniums and foxgloves.
http://www.gardenoasis.co.uk/gia...rids-p-
522.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalis
Under planted with nasturtiums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasturtium
With park type dahlias in front of them for later in the season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/
p...le_dahlia.shtml
And bordered with mesembryanthemums
http://www.unwins.co.uk/livingst...ds-
pid1002.html
But we did have hurricane force winds last Sunday.
So thats Digitalis
"The entire plant is poisonous (including the roots and seeds), although the leaves of the upper stem are particularly potent, with just a nibble being enough to potentially cause death."
Delphine
"All parts of the plant contain an alkaloid delphinine and are very poisonous, causing vomiting when eaten, and death in larger amounts"
Dahlia
"Phototoxic polyacetylene compounds"
Mesembrine
"Mesembrine is an alkaloid present in Sceletium tortuosum.[1] It has been shown to be an extremely potent serotonin reuptake inhibitor, active at dosages as low as 100μg (micrograms).[2] Mesembrine may contribute to the antidepressant effects of kanna"
You are quite right, I should move the tobacco plants away from these toxic nightmares,to a place of safety.
hi, ladyteal,
I don't know if you know that titanium dioxide causes lung cancer in rats and was (finally) reclassified as a possible human carcinogen, but I expect it has struck you that while billions of Lorrilard asbestos-filtered cigarettes were sold throughout the early-mid 1950s, resulting in not only mesothelioma but asbestos-related lung/head/neck cancers and asbestosis (commonly misdiagnosed as 'smoking-related emphysema) appearing over a period of decades specifically in smokers, this massive degree of confounding has never been considered in any bean-counting associational study?
It's one of many, but it was a big factor in the victim blame strategy.
Hi, guys
If I can comment on the debate, (and, granted, I'm simplifying a bit) - if typically about 85% of middle-aged men smoked in the 1950s in industrialized countries, there would probably be a similar proportion of younger doing so as well, and now in their 70's and 80's/.
And if 85% of the elderly now were either current or ex smokers, wouldn't one expect that approximately 85% of the lung cancer in that age bracket would occur in this group?
And if the ex-smokers form the largest group, as it appears they do, doesn't everything work out nice and proportional?
idex said "If it's possible to say that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, wouldn't it be proper to also say that radioactive particles and asbestos, etc, CAUSE lung cancer as well. In short, why pick just one of the risk factors - smoking -, and say that this is the one that causes lung cancer, while letting all the other risk factors remain as contributory factors. If people are to avoid getting lung cancer, shouldn't they be advised to avoid radioactive materials, asbestos, live outside towns and away from roads"
Yes, people should , and are , told these other substances cause LC.
One TS/LC study I like particularly is the British Doctors study.
First, it is a COHORT study, not self selected, like nigthlight implies all the evidence is .... It was launched about 1950 when there was no vendeta against smoking, when epidemiologists still followed strict scientific standards.
It had a huge population of healthy smokers and non smokers, and no one knew how it was going to turn out ahead of time, so selection bias is eliminated.
since all were doctors, there were no socioecnomic differences or occupationl differences between the smokers and the nonsmokers.
it ran for a very long period of time
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=15213107
This study has all the features of a well-run epi study....it found smoking causes LC. My point is shs studies tend not to be as well-run. most are case-controlled studies, not cohort studies, for example,,,but the Enstrom Kabat study, which found no risk from shs was large, ran for a long period of tiem, and was a cohort study.
So, if shs caused LC, E/k would have picked that up, just like the Brit Drs study picked up that first-hand smoking causes LC
Yes, people should , and are , told these other substances cause LC. - Dave K
Then why is it that when non-smokers get lung cancer, they always wail: "But I've never smoked!"? Surely the truth of the matter, the common experience of everyone, is that it has been hammered into everybody's heads for 50 years that SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER. And that is what everybody - including most of the medical profession - believes. The other risk factors barely get a passing mention.
As for the Doll and Hill British Doctor's study... well, let it be said that it has, um, many critics.
Just for starters, while you say that it was "not self-selected", the doctors selected themselves to be either smokers or non-smokers in the questionary that was sent to them. What else is meant by 'self-selection'?
Dave K wrote:
"First, it is a COHORT study, not self selected, like nightlight implies all the evidence is ...."
I think you misunderstand, Dave. What nightlight was saying is that all smoking studies are self-selected. That is, all smokers are self-selected as smokers. The doctors were not randomized into smokers and non-smokers. Smokers bring to their smoking status all sorts of genetic, environmental, personal, behavioral, cultural differences and so on. You really can't equalize the two groups. (Not without Brian Bond's magic "adjust" button, anyway! -- and no one has one)
Nightlight is more or less accepting your "association" for TS and LC -- but providing a different possible explanation (self-medication).
In Michael J's example -- if you don't look further, and bring hard science in to support or disprove your hypothesis (which was generated by the weak preliminary tools of measures of association), you will be concluding that water causes disease. Or, in other areas, we might conclude that being gay causes AIDS. There are all sorts of associations in this world -- but the associations themselves, even in the best measurement situations, still cannot provide the meaning of the association. (My skin turns darker from looking at seagulls -- happens every darn time).
IIRC in the latest report of the Brit doctors study -- smokers were also more likely to die of accidents and suicide. Did smoking "cause" those too? Or is that a hint that perhaps the two groups had some other differences?
Measures of association, in a complex world, are very, very weak tools. They aren't useless, they can generate hints and hypotheses, but you can't go beyond what they are capable of establishing. I hope folks reading this thread take at least that away from it -- and begin to look at the hard science around tobacco smoke.
It was launched about 1950 when there was no vendeta against smoking, when epidemiologists still followed strict scientific standards. - Dave K
What?? There has ALWAYS been a vendetta against smoking, just as there has been against drinking! All you need do is glance through the Tobacco Timeline to see this, if you didn't know it before.
There is also, quite apart from this long history of persecution, the little matter of the Nazi campaign against smoking in the 1930s and 1940s, immediately prior to the Doll and Hill studies.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/313/7070/
1450
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...ll/320/7236/
721
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/329/7480/
1424
Richard Doll knew about these (he'd visited Germany in 1936), and cited a 1939 study by Muller in his earlier 1950 retrospective hospital study Doll R, Hill AB. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. Preliminary report. BMJ 1950. Ernst Wynder, another of the antismoking pioneers, who also published a paper on smoking and lung cancer in 1950, grew up in Germany, before emigrating to the USA in 1939. The fact of the matter was that Wynder, Graham, Doll, Hill, etc were following in the footsteps of the earlier German researchers like Lickint, Muller, and Schairer and Shoeniger 1943, and this research and the German smoking bans which accompanied it, was part of a vendetta pursued by none other than Adolf Hitler.
It is simply not the case that a disinterested researcher by the name of Richard Doll decided, out of the blue in the late 1940s, to investigate whether smoking might cause lung cancer. He already knew a great deal about the earlier German research. In fact he probably already 'knew' that smoking caused lung cancer. He just had to repeat studies that had probably been discredited by their Nazi origins.
Neither is it true that epidemiologists still followed "strict scientific standards". They'd hardly begun to use them! The German studies, for example, didn't use the tests of statistical significance pioneered by people like Sir Ronald Fisher, and Fisher himself was a bitter critic of Doll and Hill's 1950 study on statistical grounds, and remained so until his death in the early 1960s. And all this in respect of TS/LC, never mind passive smoking, which hadn't been dreamt of in the 1950s.
...Except that it had been. Fritz Lickint, one of the earliest German researchers, started out believing that passive smoking was the cause of lung cancer, and coined the term Passivrauchen.
I would think most doctors would know if they are smokers. Certainly not enough would get that self selection wrong to explain the results. Are there probably errors in the estimates about TS-Lc hypothesis? I'm sure. but the odds those errors are enough to cancel out the observation that smokers get more LC is very low.
Sure! we don't have absolute proof, like we do about geometric theorems, but the odds are so high, that the hypothesis is useful, and works when tested.
We don't have absolute proof black holes exist either, but useful and informative theories have been designed which make predictions which come true, when tested, utilizing the assumption black holes exist.
Like it or not, that's the way science is, the hypothesis of a TS-Lc connection makes useful predictions which come true.
Michael J -- Just as an aside... I think we would be mistaken to underestimate the interest that "industry" has had (from Doll to the present) in establishing the TS/LC connection. Just think chemical workers, radiation exposed workers, shipyards, RR workers, planes, coal miners... And mistaken to underestimate the interest that Pharma now has. And mistaken to underestimate the ease with which statistical manipulation takes place (as you note).
That said, if there really IS such an association (and I'll accept that for the purpose of investigation) -- we now turn to science to try to understand the nature of any association. Either way, we need to move past the "soft-science" of measures of asociation.
First, it is a COHORT study, not self selected, like nigthlight implies all the evidence is
You may have misunderstood term self-selected I have used, apparently interpreting it as subject selecting whether to participate or not participate in a study. That interpretation would completely miss any point being made.
What I was saying is that being smoker, never-smoker or ex-smoker are self-selected categories. They are not random selections into these categories by the researcher (they must be assumed random in order to attribute causal role of smoking based on observed statistical correlations).
Unless you examine the causes of self-selection into each category and account for how these causes of that self-selection correlate with their envirnomental exposures, immune system,... or eitiology of 'smoking related diseases', your statistical associations will remain heavily confounded and no causal role of smoking with observed diseases can be legitimately inferred from them.
My point then is that some proportion of smokers self-select themselves into smoking category due to their immune overload (which is a combination effect of the levels of toxic exposures and person's immune system response to them) for which tobacco smoke would provide perceptible relief.
Therefore, the correlation of smoking and 'smoking related diseases' is no different than the positive correlation between statin use and heart attacks on samples that ignore or not control for the cause of statin use (physician's prescription resulting from his evaluation of patient's cardio-vascular risks & problems). But, because you ignored the cause of statin use, such positive correlation does not imply that statins cause heart attacks.
With smoking "science" the beneficial immune & nervous system effects of tobacco smoke are never even mentioned, much less taken into account when interpreting correlations of smoking and diseases. That is scientifically as illegitimate as if you were interpreting statin use correlations with heart attacks without taking into account the cholesterol lowering effects of statins.
Further, unlike statins, where we also have data from truly randomized (even double blind) samples in human tests, with smoking we have truly randomized samples only in animal experiments. And in those, the smoking has invariably shown to be beneficial to the animals.
Both of these sets of facts, the experimantal results on smoking animals and the well established upregulation of the key internal antioxidants and detox enzymes, as well as anti-inflammatory effects, of tobacco smoke, are as relevant for the correlations with smoking related diseases, as are the cholesterol lowering effects of statins, and the results of randomized tests, for the correlation of statin use and heart attacks.
Dave: I would think most doctors would know if they are smokers. Certainly not enough would get that self selection wrong to explain the results.
I think you are still interpreting "self-selected" in different way than I used it. The meaning I used for "self-selected" subjects, is that the causes of person's smoking, never smoking or quitting smoking are not randomized (statistically independent parameters) relative to their environmental exposures, immune status, stress,... all of which can and do play role in the etiology of 'smoking related' diseases.
Therefore, all epidemiological studies on smoking suffer from the same unaccounted for strong confounding, analogous to looking at statin use correlation with heart attacks without considering known effects of statins and causes that make some people use them. That failure to account for so obvious confounding cannot be anything but fully deliberate, since the numerous beneficial immune effects of tobacco smoke are well established (via hard science, many of them for decades) and highly relevant facts.
I would think most doctors would know if they are smokers. Certainly not enough would get that self selection wrong to explain the results. - Dave K
It's worth reading what the question was:
In addition to giving their name, address, and age, the doctors were asked to classify themselves into one of three groups - namely, (a) whether they were, at that time, smoking; (b) whether they had smoked but given up; or (c) whether they had never smoked regularly (that is, had never smoked as much as one cigarette a day, or its equivalent in pipe tobacco, for as long as one year).
When I first read "whether they were, at that time, smoking", I couldn't help but think that a doctor who happened not to have a cigarette in his hand at the time that he answered the questionary would have indicated "No."
And what of question (b), "whether they had smoked but given up"? What of doctors who had smoked and had given up many times? A doctor who had taken up and then given up smoking many times, but who was back smoking again, could well have answered "Yes" to this question.
And what about (c)? What does it mean to have "never smoked as much as one cigarette a day for as long as one year"? Does this mean that smoking less than 365 cigarettes a year counts you as a non-smoker?
There is also the question of whether anyone can actually remember how many cigarettes they may or may not have smoked in the past. Does anyone here know how many cups of coffee they were drinking per day in 2003?
In addition to this, there's the rather strange way that people classify themselves as nonsmokers, which was illustrated very recently by Joan Bakewell, who began an article saying she didn't smoke (i.e. classed herself as a nonsmoker), but in the course of the article admitted to periodically taking up smoking in times of great stress. Was she or wasn't she a smoker?
Bear in mind also that the questionary was mailed to 60,000 doctors, who would have not been able to seek clarification about the questions, as they might have if they had been asked them face to face. The doctors had to work out for themselves what the questions meant, and how they should answer them.
But even if we are to suppose that every single doctor understood the questions perfectly well, and answered with perfect accuracy, all this tells us is whether they were smokers, ex-smokers, or non-smokers at the time they were asked the question. How many of the smokers subsequently became ex-smokers? How many of the ex-smokers and nonsmokers subsequently became smokers? Isn't it reasonable to suppose that both were happening? We don't know. And we'll never know.
It may have been true that 87% of the doctors were smokers at the time they were asked, but these are soft numbers: it might have been 80% a year later, and 90% the year before, or vice versa. Yet these numbers were being used to calculate supposedly exact ratios and probabilities, neatly set out in tables.
Ellen North wrote:
"And if 85% of the elderly now were either current or ex smokers, wouldn't one expect that approximately 85% of the lung cancer in that age bracket would occur in this group?"
Yes.
And if smoking is supposed to protect against lung cancer, then less than 85% of lung cancers should be found in those two groups.
The article/study that's been mentioned that quitting smoking may trigger the onset of lung cancer does not say that smoking prevents lung cancer. Neversmokers don't face that same risk from not smoking ("quitting").
Here's the link at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center that James referred me to: http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/.../html/
12463.cfm
At the right hand top you will find the risk calculator.
Enter a few different figures and see the risks of developing lung cancer according to how many cigarettes you have smoked and how many years you have been smoking, go up and down.
Also note that it will not assess the risk for anyone who has been smoking less than 10 cigarettes a day or for less than 25 years. Obviously the risk can't be too great if they won't even assess it. Yet in that very same site they claim SHS causes cancer ! All those around my age in the 50's, will remember when doctors used to tell us to smoke no more than 10 cigarettes per day. What has science discovered since? Not much besides how to produce epi studies to get the figures to meet the agenda.
This risk calculator proves exactly the point I have been trying to make. There is no way that the 85% figure of ''smokers'' contracting LC can have any validity or accuracy when as they are doing they're lumping former smokers and current smokers of any number of cigarettes over 100 in a lifetime under the same category.
How many of these 85% getting lung cancer were only smokers of 2 cigarettes a day for 2 years, how many were heavy smokers of 40 cigarettes for 40 years etc... Unless this is broken down clearly as far as I am concerned this 85% of lung cancer occurring in ''smokers'' to me means zip zilch nada.
The poison is in the dose and in my opinion the 0 tolerance even for active smoking is strictly agenda driven.
Iro: Unless this is broken down clearly as far as I am concerned this 85% of lung cancer occurring in ''smokers'' to me means zip zilch nada.
Even if it were all neatly broken down, it still doesn't mean much unless they also take into account multitude of beneficial immune and nervous system effects of tobacco smoke, which in turn affect who will become smoker, never-smoker or ex-smoker. That kind of fundamental confounding cannot legitimately be ignored.
For example, if you were to look at correlations between statin use and heart attack, without taking into account the effects of statins (chlesterol lowering), which in turn affect who becomes statin user or non-user, you could conclude that statins cause heart attacks, since statin users will have more heart attacks than statin non-users on these confounded samples.
Nightlight
If I understand correctly, simply put, you are basing your ''smoking does not cause cancer'' theory on the one fact that experimental rats lived longer when subjected to smoke. From there on you build your theory that smoking is good for you therefore people who smoke instinctively do it to counter lung cancer which they,re doomed to get if they don't self medicate with tobacco. Those that do get LC are those that couldn't manage to counter it with the beneficial effects of tobacco and get it anyway. And this, if I understand correctly, is the confounding element that scientists ignore and keep believing that tobacco is the culprit.
This line of thinking in my opinion is as flawed as researchers that conduct their studies with the original basis that ''smoking causes lung cancer'' and attempt to prove it every which way they can.
But like Dave has said, humans are not rats and if I am going to believe your theory then I will have to buy all the studies done on rats and how they react, which I don't. I have my reservations about any experimentation done on other than humans to conclude how harmful or beneficial certain substances are to humans.
As long as there are serious biases on each extreme of the debate, any conclusion is strictly theoretical and the results either doubtful or flawed.
My personal belief is that tobacco has great benefits which help me myself. But like any other substance, when use goes over that beneficial threshhold, it can cause side effects, some a lot worse than others.
I believe that, like any other substance (chemical or natural)there are permissible levels to tobacco that can benefit its users without the constant and deliberate induced fear that accompanies the practice and without causing any significant harm and therefore I don't, nor did I ever buy the zero tolerance mantra.
I find it a bloody shame that the zero tolerance TC attitude, is preventing scientists to do serious research for permissible levels that when not trespassed would render tobacco beneficial to many people who use it, without putting their health into any significant risk. The way it stands, if one smoke per day is as bad for me as 25, then what the h... I might as well smoke 25!
The poison is in the dose.
Iro: If I understand correctly, simply put, you are basing your ''smoking does not cause cancer'' theory on the one fact that experimental rats lived longer when subjected to smoke. From there on you build your theory that smoking is good for you therefore people who smoke instinctively do it to counter lung cancer...
No, not quite like that (the above is almost like a caricature of of what I was saying). I am basing it on the general protective effects of tobacco smoke (well established on humans & animals) for the immune system, in particular the substantial upregulation of all key antioxidant and detox enzymes, nearly doubling levels of glutathione (more recent data here, cf. Fig 4, p. L1076), catalase and superoxide dismutase, in addition to anti-inflammatory effects and a boost of neutrophiles (by 25-30%, cf. Table I, p. 121 http://www.znaturforsch.com/ac/v...8c/
s58c0119.pdf ). Any pharma researcher would give his right eye tooth if he could come up with a substance that achieves one tenth of the above figures.
Consequently, anyone with immune system overload (due to any toxic exposures and/or inherent immune weaknesses) will perceive substantial relief from smoking, due to the near doubling of detox rates, the enahanced protection by neutrophiles (the first line defense against any invading pathogens) and reduced inflammatory damages. Hence, for some propotion of smokers (which is increasing due to antismoking pressures), smoking is a form of self-mediction.
Like any such protective medication, be it prescribed or spontaneously selected, smoking thus becomes a proxy or a gauge of immune overload (e.g. toxic exposures & inherent immune defficiencies). Therefore smoking will positively correlate with variety of toxic exposures (which, among others, includes any carcinogens) and inherent immune problems, along with all their long term consequences, such as 'smoking related' diseases.
This is no different than positive correlations between statin use and heart attacks. If you don't take into account effects of statins (lowering of LDL cholesterol) or what caused use of statins (physician's evaluation of you cardio-vascular state), you could equally well "conclude" that stains cause heart attacks.
That is precisely the kind of sleight of hand on which the entire antismoking "science" and its claims are based -- it deliberately ignores protective immune effects of tobacco smoke, and their confounding role as a the cause of smoking for some (increasing) proportion of smokers.
As to the animal experiments, which over the last five decades have unambiguously demonstrated that smoking animals live substantially longer (by ~20 percent), while maintaining more youthful weight and performance, especially cognitive -- this is another very relevant set of hard scientific facts which not only further supports the protective role of smoking and the self-medication model above, from a different, more empirical angle, but also outright contradicts the "smoking is harmful" postulate of the antismoking "science". These experiments demonstrate that smoking is not merely harmless to the smoker, but that it is a highly beneficial as a potent youth elixir, without equal among all natural and synthetic life-extending substances. By always coming out the "wrong" way, these animal experiments are another big taboo subject of the antismoking "science".
Iro wrote:
"Also note that it will not assess the risk for anyone who has been smoking less than 10 cigarettes a day or for less than 25 years. Obviously the risk can't be too great if they won't even assess it. Yet in that very same site they claim SHS causes cancer."
Good point.
this may be the record longest comment thread ever, on one of Dr. Siegel's blogs. Yet doc has not posted here, but I'd love to see the expression on his face, cause I know he is following this thread.
Come-on doc, say something...
I'll be away from my puter this afternoon and tomorrow, so this is my last post for awhile.
Petro was, himself, a smoker when he began research on a possible TS-LC link, Sometime before release of the 1964 report, Luther Tery, switched from smoking cigarettes, to a pipe. I realize some early research was done by the nazies, but any vendetta against smoking back then pales in comparison to today. I think back then tobacco researchers were much more objective than today.
great points about practically everyone smoking a few cigs themselves, and misclassification of never smokers v. light smokers, and former smokers. one has to how any purported effect of SHS could be measured against such a background of practically everyone smoking a few cigs at sometime in their lives.
In 1953, about half of all males smoked, so any self selection problems with smokers self-medicating other existing conditions with tobacco,which other conditions could lead to LC, is less likely, unless about half of us suffer from such conditions.
A quick google search gives:
Time trends in lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers and a note ...1: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981 Jun;66(6):1061-6. Time trends in lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers and a note on passive smoking. Garfinkel L. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6941041 - Similar pages
Bulletin of the World Health Organization -Garfinkel L. Time trends in lung cancer mortality among non-smokers and a note on passive smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,1981, ...
www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&
pid=S0042-96862000000700012&lng=&nrm= - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
ACS :: CPS-I PublicationsGarfinkel L. Time trends in lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers and a note on passive smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981; 66:1061-66 ...
www.cancer.org/docroot/RES/content/
RES_6_4x_Cancer_Prevention_Study_CPS_I.asp?
sitearea=RES - 44k - Cached - Similar pages ---------------------------------=-----
Garfinkel was VP of epi and statistics for the Amer cancer Soc, ( a position now held by Thun) and did objective research on smoking and shs, and note he used time trends, as part of his protocol.
he found nonsmokers of light smoking spouses had about 1.3 times as much LC as nonsmokers with nonsmoking spouses, but that nonsmoking spouses of heavy smokers had no increased LC incidence. since there was an inverse dose resp rel, he concluded no risk existed, and he also studies time trends of LC in nonsmoekrs to bolster his conclusion.
By the way, this study was a huge cohort study, of CPS-1 data, which is the same data-base enstrom/Kabat used the CA subset of to conclude the same thing. Garfinkel and E/K concluded the same thing using huge robust data sets, and using cohorts as opposed case control studies. SHS studies on CPS-1 data appear to be reproducible, and find no risk.
My epi text book, Cancer Epidemiology, Principles and proceedures, describes how time trends can yield valuable data. They can steengthen hypothesis of cohort studies because technically time trends, are over-lapping cohort studies where exposure changes over time, and utilize huge populations.
This all got started because i said I couldn't detect a heart attack change in time trend as a result of 50 years of smokers quitting in the USA, so how could a smoking ban cause a 40% decline overnight...nothing more.
Nightlight jumped down my throat, totally missing my point..... regardless, of mechanisms, or theory, or fact, if 50 years of declines in first hand smoking cannot cause a noticable impact on heart attack rates, then a ban can't either.
really tthat's all I have to add to this discussion. I hope ya'all will look at the garfinkle study linked above, and reevaluate your own feelings about whether or not time trends can yeild useful data.
I have been keeping up with the majority of great comments in here.
I have just found this link someone left in the f2c site.
Is this man sane? I know he is a dictator, but what about his sanity. This has nothing to do with health as most of us know -
http://www.pr-inside.com/majorit...all-
r665258.htm
Majority Want Smoking Banned in All Homes [06/26/08] Latest Front in the War to Protect Nonsmokers
This man is not good for anyones health!!
Dave: Nightlight jumped down my throat, totally missing my point..... regardless, of mechanisms, or theory, or fact, if 50 years of declines in first hand smoking cannot cause a noticable impact on heart attack rates, then a ban can't either.
I only commented on the fact that it appears you have used entirely different semantics for the term "self-selection" than what I meant by it in my argument. Hopefully, with that bit of miscommunication cleared up, we can agree now that the statistical correlations on self-selected subjects are equally consistent with harmful and protective effects of tobacco smoke, leaving thus hard science to disentangle the causal ambivalence of the soft epidemiological hints.
Regarding heart attacks, as you recognize, they don't even have even remotely coherent statistics to hint at a possible harm from smoking, let alone hard science. In fact, the hard science is quite clear that there is nothing better for your cardio-vascular health than tobacco smoke: from abundant Coenzyme Q10, the popular heart miracle supplement, delivered right into your arterial bloodstream, to vascular growth factor boost from nicotine & possibly other components of TS (used even in heart pharmaceuticals, among others, to grow arteries as a safer alternative to bypass surgery), peripheral circulation stimulus from low dose Nitric Oxide, cholesterol optimizing niacin, anti-apopototic, oxygenation stimulating low dose Carbon Monoxide, heart muscle cells mitochondrial antioxidant protection from doubled SOD, catalase and glutathione, amplified further by the telomerase upregulation which slows their cellular aging & pushes away their Hayflick limit, the unique vascular exercise through vaso-constrictory/-dilating sympathetic vs para-sympathetic cyclic alternations ocurring between cigarettes, stress, anxiety & depression reducing nervous system effects of tobacco smoke (especially the MAO B inhibition by 40%, rewinding dopamine & norepinephrine aging clock by couple decades),.... Absolutely nothing from either the pharma or the supplement industry comes even close to the cardio-vascular medicinal magic of this 'most precious gift of gods to the humans'.
nightlight,
I find your reasoning both compelling and seductive. But I am not sure as to whether
it is the strength of your conviction or the substance of your
conviction that I find appealing. I have to say that I find the notion that the reason that there are 1.2 billion smokers in the world is simply that they are all "addicted" to smoking as a thoroughly unsatisfactory one. Especially, as this "addiction" explanation is so clearly used as an excuse for intervention.
I always thought that the one strong thing about the Doctors Study was the dose response relationship and I think that this could support your model too. But on the time line arguments , I am not so sure, I lean towards Dave K on that one. To tell you the truth it (the time line stuff) makes me struggle with my objectivity (or lack of it).
Fredrik
Nicotine as an addictive substance : A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
atrens.pdf
Recommended reading.
"The view of smoking as an addiction to nicotine implies that nicotine is an addictive drug and a primary reinforcer. However, nicotine other than in tobacco does not appear to be very rewarding for smokers"
"Conclusions This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified"
http://www.tobacco.org/news/245910.html
US ruling turns smokers into junkies
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...o-junkies-
.html
Looks like we were set up.
Fredrik Eich: But on the time line arguments , I am not so sure, I lean towards Dave K on that one. To tell you the truth it (the time line stuff) makes me struggle with my objectivity (or lack of it).
The bulk secular trends are by far the weakest among all epidemiological evidence.
First, secular trends share the fundamental ambiguity of epidemiology in interpreting the statistical correlation on self-selected categories of subjects { smoker, never-smoker, ex-smoker}. Such confounded correlations by themselves, no matter how strong, robust and widespread (even without numerous anomalies observed for the correlations of smoking with diseases), intrinsicaly lack resolution to distinguish between the competing models: (a)={TS causes TS-related diseases}, (b)={TS is a spontaneous self-medication for the causes or the proxies of TS-related diseases} or (c)={causes or the proxies of TS and TS-related diseases overlap}. The virtual code of silence in the antismoking "science" about well established and well known among experts, therapeutic & especially immuno-protective effects of TS, which overwhelmingly support model (b), indicates a delibirate scientific fraud among those in antismoking "science" who ought to know (the lower layers of A.S.S. are merely victims of the bandwagon effect, ignorance, stupidity, hysteria). The religious-like taboo in the A.S.S. about the potent life-extending properties of tobacco smoke, so dramatic in animal experiments (extending life by ~20 percent), not only confirms how the deeply rotten to its core that entire profit driven enterprise is, but that even its nominal 'public health' mission is a mere charade.
Second, secular trends, even when there is a good match, robust over different countries and over several peaks and valeys between a disease trend curve D(t+dt) and some factor trend curve F1(t), where dt is a presumed latency of disease D relative to the F1 exposure, only indicate that factor F1 may belong to the same graph of casues and effects with the disease D (note that even the established fact of belonging, by itself still doesn't imply that F1 causes D, as illustrated above with alternative conjectures a,b & c modeling that same common belonging).
But before even such hypothetical robust multifaceted match between F1(t) and D(t+dt), which antismoking "science" doesn't have, could assign F1 to the same cause-effect graph with D, it would have to consider all other trends of factors F2(t), F3(t),... Fn(t) which have similar biological plausibility as F1(t) (e.g. for LC 'plausible' would be anything inhaled, at least, by the population observed), then evaluate trend proximity of the n pairs of curves P_k = Proximity_Measure(F_k(t), D(t+dt_k)), for all k=1,2,..n. The resulting list of n proximity values P1, P2,... Pn merely yields the probabilities for factors F1, F2,.. Fn of belonging to the common cause-effect graph with D. In contrast to the secular trend method, the case-control epidemiology can establish such belonging to the common cause-effect graph much more firmly and with far less data (since it is far closer to the subject being studied).
As an illustration of causality illusion in the trend method, consider the earlier example of positive correlations between the use of eyeglasses and sunburns (e.g. Americans who used sunglasses more often last year had more sunburns). Suppose now that Congress and EPA in their infinite wisdom, in order to save innocent children from sunburns, introduce super-tax on sunglasses and bans display or use of sunglasses 100 yards from schools,... Within short time sunglasses use would drop. What would happen to sunburns? The sunburns would drop, too, since without sunglasses people would avoid sun exposure, which without sunglasses for many would become unpleasant. We could repat this cycle of anti-sunglasses hysteria and pro-sunglasses fashion any number of times, almosty anywhere in the world, and the two curves would keep oscillating in a good sync, even though sunglasses don't cause sunburns.
In other words, when dealing with intelligent networks, be it a biochemical network of a cell, human being, stock market, economy, society, ecosystem as whole, such systems don't respond as a simple-minded mechanical device, with linear, additive cause-effect relations (e.g. Newton's superposition of forces). Such intelligent networks anticipate, strategize, look ahead in order to select next steps that optimize some punishments/rewards. The bulk trends and their correlations in such anticipatory systems are at best of heuristic value as hints of possible finer causality at the node level, but not a demonstration of causality, even if the trends cycle in perfect time-delayed sync many times and in any place.
Could smoking and 'smoking related' diseases show similar causal-like cycles, assuming smoking doesn't cause those diseases, just like use of sunglasses and sunburns would show? Very easily. For example, say some carcinogen at some type of workplaces causes LC and smoking, based on its boost in general detox capacity, alleviates symptoms of such exposure. If the smoking is dramatically reduced through social engineering, workers whose immune system is overloaded the most by such exposure and who would be the most likely ones to smoke (see the study of German aluminum workers, discussed above http://www.haloscan.com/comments...9399693/
#162763 ), may find that without smoking they can't tolerate such exposure due to its noxius effect on them, and they would go to some other job they can cope better with. Those workers with better inherent detox rates for that toxin wouldn't be affected as much and would remain at the job in greater proportion. Further, that industry, faced with depletion of workforce, may also improve working conditions to keep the workers. Additionally, the higher workforce cost in that industry may stimulate imports (shifting thus the LC to other countries), or alternative products or ways of filling the need that the original product was filling....
The net effect of such initial shift in workforce biased by the innate immune hardiness of the workers to that toxin, along with the cascade of all other reponses by the industry and the rest in the surrounding social and economic networks, may easily result in fewer total lung cancers caused by that particular carcinogen (or may drive the LC rates up or leave them unchanged, depending on how all the resulting movements in the network, each driving in its own direction, end up combining their effects on LC). The starting effect, the initial shift in workforce, would tend to decrease the LC rates (by driving sensitive workers out), but other secondary network reactions could easily drive them back.
All that would have been relevant argument if we were in 1950, when the first hints of such association came out. But we now are nearly six decades, along with thousands of experiments and other results of hard science on effects of tobacco smoke, beyond those early hints. From these we know, that it is for all practical purposes impossible to cause harm to health or lifespan of lab animals via inhalation of tobacco smoke (short of brute asphyxiation at doses more than order of magnitude higher than from human smoking). We also know of dozens of specific therapeutic and protective effects (mostly for immune, nervous and cardio-vascular system) of tobacco smoke, well established and measured on humans and lab animals.
With all that information of hard science available, the engaging into speculative story telling and vacuous arguments within the fuzzy realm of secular trends and heavily confounded correlations on self-selected subjects, at this stage represents implicit submission to the taboo of the antismoking "science" -- never mention or take into account those two large sets of solid facts of hard science. It is like focusing on ETS/SHS subject , debating it with antismokers or to reassure nonsmokers -- merely entering any such debate tacitly accepts as a framework of the debate the core myth and the Big Lie of the antismoking "science" that smoking causes any harm at all. The ETS topics, along with debating heavily confounded stats & trends, or even worse the liberties and rights of smokers, are the most fatal mistake of the present smoker groups, the main reason behind their persistent 'failure to thrive'.
The antismoking emperor (the "harm of smoking to smoker" myth) is stark naked and all alone in the center shivering and hiding from hard science, while his forces are spread out far and thin at the junkiest frontiers of the junk science. Chasing them and battling them out there is complete waste of time and counter-productive for the smokers since it only further reinfoces in their minds the paralyzing central myth of the antismoking swindlers ('smoking harms smoker'), the very toxin that kept us us defensless to be dragged where we are now. The pro-smoking groups need to show smokers the naked emperor -- focus on hard science (forget soft & fuzzy stats & trends of the junk science, since that tacitly accepts the pretend absence of hard science, which is all on our side) and how to educate and inform smokers and only smokers, as quickly as possible, on the main finding of the hard science about tobacco smoking -- smoking is good for you. As soon as smokers are outside of the antismoking Matrix, released from the spell of its death curse ('smoking
Oops, the last sentence was truncated on 10,000 character limit:
----------------------
The antismoking emperor (the "harm of smoking to smoker" myth) is stark naked and all alone in the center shivering and hiding from hard science, while his forces are spread out far and thin at the junkiest frontiers of the junk science. Chasing them and battling them out there is complete waste of time and counter-productive for the smokers since it only further reinfoces in their minds the paralyzing central myth of the antismoking swindlers ('smoking harms smoker'), the very toxin that kept us us defensless to be dragged where we are now. The pro-smoking groups need to show smokers the naked emperor -- focus on hard science (forget soft & fuzzy stats & trends of the junk science, since that tacitly accepts the pretend absence of hard science, which is all on our side) and how to educate and inform smokers and only smokers, as quickly as possible, on the main finding of the hard science about tobacco smoking -- smoking is good for you. As soon as smokers are outside of the antismoking Matrix, released from the spell of its death curse ('smoking kills'), everything else will fall in its place of its own accord and the antismoking behemoth will instantly implode into its own emptiness.
Is nightlight saying anything new? If it is not already clear, with his sunglasses analogy nightlight is simply re-introducing a suggestion that was made by Sir Ronald Fisher 50 years ago.
The subject is complicated, and I mentioned at an early stage that the logical distinction was between A causing B, B causing A, something else causing both. [1]
I'd like to make this clear, if it hasn't been made clear already, lest anyone think that nightlight is on his own. He isn't. He is in august company. And his sunglasses example wonderfully illustrates what Fisher described as "something else causing both".
Another historical question that needs to be asked is: why was it that within 5 years of the start of the Doll and Hill doctors' study in 1951 (which was to run for another 50 years), politicians and press were already convinced that smoking caused lung cancer? Why was it that, over 50 years ago, this subject was already as polarised between rival camps as it is now? Why was it that they were already saying over 50 years ago that "The debate is over"? What happened back then?
I don't propose to answer this question, so much as to make suggestions. And the principal suggestion that I would like to make is that smoking tobacco - like drinking alcohol - had long been regarded by many people as a dreadful vice, and that when the link of smoking and lung cancer was made, such people fell upon it with alacrity, as proof of the viciousness of smoking. In case this seems far-fetched, anyone who experienced the rise of AIDS in the 1980s will also remember how many of those who regarded homosexuality as a dreadful vice saw in AIDS the justification of their conviction. Homosexuality gave its practitioners AIDS just like smoking gave its practitioners lung cancer.
In addition, I gained something of an insight into just how vicious the practice of smoking was regarded, in the story recounted by General Bernard Montgomery (I'm sorry I can't provide a link, because I heard - or read - it such a long time ago), hero of Alamein - that after being caught smoking in his youth circa 1900, he was first taken by his father to a chapel to pray, and then delivered to his mother to receive a sound thrashing. What exactly was it that required that the young Monty be subjected to such an elaborate punishment, long before anyone had linked smoking and lung cancer?
To pursue this a little further, if one is to ask why antismokers always begin (as they manifestly do) with the supposition that smoking is an evil that should be extirpated from the face of the earth, there is no point in looking at the scientific evidence produced by Doll and Hill, or Wynder and Graham, or by Fritz Lickint. Antismokers were against smoking long before these figures made their appearance. They simply served to confirm what antismokers had always believed: that smoking was a vicious and unnatural practice, much like the unnatural practice of alcoholic intoxication, or the unnatural sexual practice of buggery.
As such, smoking is a matter of morality, not science - and it doesn't really matter whether the studies of Doll and Hill or anybody else produced Relative Risks for smokers of 10 or 20 or 30, or whether these studies were statistically significant - because the foundational issues are moral issues, which neither antismokers nor smokers feel able to discuss except through the inadequate proxy of smoking epidemiology.
It's this moral issue that really needs to be brought to the fore. We perhaps ought to be discussing these notions of 'natural' and 'unnatural' which seem to underpin so much of our moral thinking - and in areas which extend far outside the narrow debate about smoking.
nightlight wrote:
"The pro-smoking groups need to show smokers the naked emperor -- focus on hard science...and inform smokers...on the main finding of the hard science about tobacco smoking -- smoking is good for you."
From what I can gather, your hard science is that some rats lived longer than others. That's not conclusive evidence for humans.
If the other hard science is that tobacco smoke is jammed full of things that are good for you, I'd ask, "What if I jammed all that good stuff into a glass of gasoline and drank it, would it still be good for me?"
I don't think you've said what the proper dosage is for tobacco smoke to be good for us. Is it 1 cigarette a day or 30? Is it possible you're correct in your theory, but smokers can over-medicate and cause more problems than they prevent?
You mentioned tobacco's been tweaked for the past 4,000(?) years. What did the tweakers use to test their tweakings, epi studies or animal experiments?
Why don't you try and get your stuff published in a medical journal? I'd like to see the debate on it.
Hi, guys.
For anyone who ever needs an answer to the typical claim that 'only tobacco industry propagandists' deny the anti lines, the 1950's - right around that time of government-supported-industry-hired-expert scientific 'proof' that smoking caused common occupational and other illness for which industry and government would be otherwise held accountable - provided many a similar strategy.
Below is yet another example of exactly the same sort of disinformation and bullying tactics shown by antis earlier, then, and now, directed against the interests and health of the population using the created excuse of 'public health' for industry profiteering carried out with governmental, medical association, and official 'Public Health' support.
The following illustrates that the anti assault on smokers is merely the continuation of standard toxic industry tactics long since honed in a number of areas, in which the personal interests of smokers per se cannot be claimed to be clouding their judgement.
From below: '...All those who dared to object, or speak out... were intimidated, slandered, suspended from their professional associations, fired, forced to resign, or otherwise silenced. ...'
http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/his...tory/
hodge2.htm
In 1951, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to determine the relative risks and benefits of water fluoridation. The panel chairman, Kenneth Maxcy, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member Francis Heyroth was Assistant Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, and Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., was the Nation's leading authority on fluoride.
Since the health effects of fluoride had been industry's problem, the experts who moved into our government regulatory agencies came, primarily, from industry -- and one of those industries was war. Uncle Sam wanted the atomic bomb, and also wanted chemical warfare agents, as well as airplanes, rocket fuel, steel, aluminum, glass, electricity, etc. These required the exposure of workers to fluoride. In 1954, nine corporations involved in or threatened with litigation due to air and water pollution by fluoride financed "Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure," a pro-fluoridation review, which provided the medical and dental community with industry's version of science, while appearing to be unbiased and accurate. The United States Public Health Service had begun its extensive campaign to bring water fluoridation to every city in the nation, with the help of endorsements by well-known medical and dental associations.
All those who dared to object, or speak out regarding the toxicity of fluoride, were intimidated, slandered, suspended from their professional associations, fired, forced to resign, or otherwise silenced.
In a statewide survey conducted in September 1954, J. A. Forst, M.D., New York State University Department of Education, using identical examinations in all cities, reported observing one-third more dental defects including malposition of teeth in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, than in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston. Dr. Forst was chastised for his efforts.
Two North Carolina dentists who opposed fluoridation publicly in 1954 were suspended by the American Dental Association for one year. On June 7, 1957, Dr. W. H. Hill, Calgary, Alberta, Medical Officer of Health, was dropped as medical examiner after 25 years because he opposed fluoridation. Dr. Jonathan Forman, Columbus, Ohio, allergist, after 25 years as editor of the State Medical Journal, resigned on request because of anti-fluoridation speeches and meetings (Columbus Citizen, 11/13/5
Dr. F. J. Stare, heavily endowed by industry, called physicians who oppose fluoridation "misinformed, stupid or dishonest" in the AMA Journal of December 2, 1961. Dr. Stare later became the darling of the pre-sweetened cereal industry when he said that refined white sugar (sucrose) is an "essential nutrient," necessary for the normal growth and development of children.
In 1963 the National Institute of Dental Research funded publication of a book of abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati. According to its preface, the Kettering Laboratory became interested in the fluoride literature in the late 1920s with its investigation of the effects of some of the freons (a class of organic fluorides used as refrigerants). In the late 1940s a systematic bibliographic program was initiated at the Kettering Lab at the request of several sponsors whose concern was the effect of industrial exposure to fluorides. This resulted in the publication in 1958 of an annotated bibliography, The Occurrence and Biological Effects of Fluorine Compounds, Vol I, The Inorganic Compounds, containing approximately 8700 abstracts.
A review from the Kettering Laboratory titled "Toxicological Evidence for the Safety of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies, by Francis F. Heyroth, M.D., and published in the American Journal of Public Health, volume 42, 1952, is cited by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as evidence for the safety of fluoridation. The references deal with rabbits, sheep, cattle, swine, a dog, Danish miners, pooled urine samples, a man, six people in South Africa, two people, heights & weights, pediatric exams, x-rays, etc. Kettering is the national clearing house for fluoride research. In another example, a case report published in the May, 1943 issue of Radiology described severely mottled teeth as well as skeletal fluorosis in a man who, until the age of seven had used water containing 1.2 ppm fluoride; for two years, used water containing 5.7 ppm fluoride; and then for seven years used water containing 4.4 ppm fluoride. In Kettering's book, however, the figure is 12 ppm. According to the report, titled Fluoride Osteosclerosis from Drinking Water, "all the teeth showed a severe degree of mottled enamel."
Kettering sponsors included the Aluminum Company of America (the original source of suggestions that fluoride might prevent dental decay), Aluminum Company of Canada, American Petroleum Institute, Columbia-Geneva Steel Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Harshaw Chemical Company, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemicals Corporation, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, Reynolds Metals Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Universal Oil Products Company -- all concerned with toxic waste, and worker health.
Dr. Robert Kehoe was Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati Department of Preventive Medicine and Industrial Health, Medical Director of the Ethyl Corporation, consultant to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the Division of Occupational Medicine of the Public Health Service. He was one of the primary spokesmen for the safety of fluoridation, and also testified for the safety of atmospheric lead from auto exhausts. (Leaded gasoline shown no public health threat. July/August, 1962. Oil Facts.)
In a popular pro-fluoridation booklet, Our Children's Teeth, Dr. Kehoe wrote: "The question of the public safety of fluoridation is non-existent from the viewpoint of medical science."
In the late 1970s I was able to convince the Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, as well as a number of legislators, that the promotion of water fluoridation was based on the fraudulent Kettering abstracts. Dr. Szweda, who was then chief of the dental division, was remarkably unimpressed when I showed him photocopies of the original scientific journals side-by-side with the Kettering abstracts. He said, "Look, lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must be something wrong with the originals." Legislators, however, were not so thoroughly brain washed. Within a short time, Michigan repealed its mandatory water fluoridation law. ...
The erroneous dosage figures originated with Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., who was then Chairman of the Committee on Toxicology of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the National Research Council. He had been a consultant to several industrial companies since 1937, had been involved with the Manhattan Project since the spring of 1943, and present at the Bikini tests in July 1946. Hodge began his work with the Atomic Energy Commission in January of 1947, studying the toxicity of fluorine, uranium, beryllium and other elements and compounds of special interest to the AEC.; was Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee on the fluoridation of water supplies of the State of New York Department of Health, and member of the Food and Nutrition Board subcommittee of the Institute of Medicine, which was appointed to study the problem of providing an optimum amount of fluoride in the American diet, including the water supply. The committee report, which contains Hodge's chart of fluoride effects became Publication 294, National Research Council, November 1953.
Dr. Hodge cited Roholm's classic study of the effects of fluoride on workers exposed to dusts from cryolite, a natural ore containing fluoride, sodium, and aluminum. However, the original data was expressed in metric terms -- milligrams per kilogram of body weight -- and, somehow, Hodge neglected to convert pounds to kilograms when applying the data to a typical range in body weight. This colossal error became the backbone of our fluoride paradigm. ...
My comment - do read the article and consider - if legitimate democratic government, of, by and for the people and representing their interests rather than those of profiteering industrial self-interests, had been enforced from the beginning, what kind of a world would we have?
Hi, guys.
For anyone who innocently wonders why government would support/propagate false evidence of smoking attribution supporting industry's contention of victim blame for radiation/asbestos/chemical-caused cancers and other lung and heart damage, the 1950's - that time of government-supported-industry-hired-expert 'scientific proof' that smoking caused common occupational and other illness for which industry and government would be otherwise held accountable - provided many a similar strategy.
Below is yet another example of exactly the same sort of disinformation and bullying tactics shown by antis earlier, then, and now, directed against the interests and health of the population using the created excuse of 'public health' for industry profiteering carried out with governmental, medical association, and official 'Public Health' support.
The following illustrates that the anti assault on smokers is merely the continuation of standard toxic industry tactics long since honed in a number of areas, in which the personal interests of smokers per se cannot be claimed to be clouding their judgement.
From below: '...All those who dared to object, or speak out... were intimidated, slandered, suspended from their professional associations, fired, forced to resign, or otherwise silenced. ...'
http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/his...tory/
hodge2.htm
In 1951, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to determine the relative risks and benefits of water fluoridation. The panel chairman, Kenneth Maxcy, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member Francis Heyroth was Assistant Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, and Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., was the Nation's leading authority on fluoride.
Since the health effects of fluoride had been industry's problem, the experts who moved into our government regulatory agencies came, primarily, from industry -- and one of those industries was war. Uncle Sam wanted the atomic bomb, and also wanted chemical warfare agents, as well as airplanes, rocket fuel, steel, aluminum, glass, electricity, etc. These required the exposure of workers to fluoride. In 1954, nine corporations involved in or threatened with litigation due to air and water pollution by fluoride financed "Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure," a pro-fluoridation review, which provided the medical and dental community with industry's version of science, while appearing to be unbiased and accurate. The United States Public Health Service had begun its extensive campaign to bring water fluoridation to every city in the nation, with the help of endorsements by well-known medical and dental associations.
All those who dared to object, or speak out regarding the toxicity of fluoride, were intimidated, slandered, suspended from their professional associations, fired, forced to resign, or otherwise silenced.
In a statewide survey conducted in September 1954, J. A. Forst, M.D., New York State University Department of Education, using identical examinations in all cities, reported observing one-third more dental defects including malposition of teeth in fluoridated Newburgh, New York, than in the non-fluoridated control city of Kingston. Dr. Forst was chastised for his efforts.
Two North Carolina dentists who opposed fluoridation publicly in 1954 were suspended by the American Dental Association for one year. On June 7, 1957, Dr. W. H. Hill, Calgary, Alberta, Medical Officer of Health, was dropped as medical examiner after 25 years because he opposed fluoridation. Dr. Jonathan Forman, Columbus, Ohio, allergist, after 25 years as editor of the State Medical Journal, resigned on request because of anti-fluoridation speeches and meetings (Columbus Citizen, 11/13/5
Dr. F. J. Stare, heavily endowed by industry, called physicians who oppose fluoridation "misinformed, stupid or dishonest" in the AMA Journal of December 2, 1961. Dr. Stare later became the darling of the pre-sweetened cereal industry when he said that refined white sugar (sucrose) is an "essential nutrient," necessary for the normal growth and development of children.
In 1963 the National Institute of Dental Research funded publication of a book of abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati. According to its preface, the Kettering Laboratory became interested in the fluoride literature in the late 1920s with its investigation of the effects of some of the freons (a class of organic fluorides used as refrigerants). In the late 1940s a systematic bibliographic program was initiated at the Kettering Lab at the request of several sponsors whose concern was the effect of industrial exposure to fluorides. This resulted in the publication in 1958 of an annotated bibliography, The Occurrence and Biological Effects of Fluorine Compounds, Vol I, The Inorganic Compounds, containing approximately 8700 abstracts.
A review from the Kettering Laboratory titled "Toxicological Evidence for the Safety of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies, by Francis F. Heyroth, M.D., and published in the American Journal of Public Health, volume 42, 1952, is cited by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as evidence for the safety of fluoridation. The references deal with rabbits, sheep, cattle, swine, a dog, Danish miners, pooled urine samples, a man, six people in South Africa, two people, heights & weights, pediatric exams, x-rays, etc. Kettering is the national clearing house for fluoride research. In another example, a case report published in the May, 1943 issue of Radiology described severely mottled teeth as well as skeletal fluorosis in a man who, until the age of seven had used water containing 1.2 ppm fluoride; for two years, used water containing 5.7 ppm fluoride; and then for seven years used water containing 4.4 ppm fluoride. In Kettering's book, however, the figure is 12 ppm. According to the report, titled Fluoride Osteosclerosis from Drinking Water, "all the teeth showed a severe degree of mottled enamel."
Kettering sponsors included the Aluminum Company of America (the original source of suggestions that fluoride might prevent dental decay), Aluminum Company of Canada, American Petroleum Institute, Columbia-Geneva Steel Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Harshaw Chemical Company, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemicals Corporation, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, Reynolds Metals Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Universal Oil Products Company -- all concerned with toxic waste, and worker health.
Dr. Robert Kehoe was Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati Department of Preventive Medicine and Industrial Health, Medical Director of the Ethyl Corporation, consultant to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the Division of Occupational Medicine of the Public Health Service. He was one of the primary spokesmen for the safety of fluoridation, and also testified for the safety of atmospheric lead from auto exhausts. (Leaded gasoline shown no public health threat. July/August, 1962. Oil Facts.)
In a popular pro-fluoridation booklet, Our Children's Teeth, Dr. Kehoe wrote: "The question of the public safety of fluoridation is non-existent from the viewpoint of medical science."
In the late 1970s I was able to convince the Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, as well as a number of legislators, that the promotion of water fluoridation was based on the fraudulent Kettering abstracts. Dr. Szweda, who was then chief of the dental division, was remarkably unimpressed when I showed him photocopies of the original scientific journals side-by-side with the Kettering abstracts. He said, "Look, lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must be something wrong with the originals." Legislators, however, were not so thoroughly brain washed. Within a short time, Michigan repealed its mandatory water fluoridation law. ...
The erroneous dosage figures originated with Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., who was then Chairman of the Committee on Toxicology of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the National Research Council. He had been a consultant to several industrial companies since 1937, had been involved with the Manhattan Project since the spring of 1943, and present at the Bikini tests in July 1946. Hodge began his work with the Atomic Energy Commission in January of 1947, studying the toxicity of fluorine, uranium, beryllium and other elements and compounds of special interest to the AEC.; was Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee on the fluoridation of water supplies of the State of New York Department of Health, and member of the Food and Nutrition Board subcommittee of the Institute of Medicine, which was appointed to study the problem of providing an optimum amount of fluoride in the American diet, including the water supply. The committee report, which contains Hodge's chart of fluoride effects became Publication 294, National Research Council, November 1953.
Dr. Hodge cited Roholm's classic study of the effects of fluoride on workers exposed to dusts from cryolite, a natural ore containing fluoride, sodium, and aluminum. However, the original data was expressed in metric terms -- milligrams per kilogram of body weight -- and, somehow, Hodge neglected to convert pounds to kilograms when applying the data to a typical range in body weight. This colossal error became the backbone of our fluoride paradigm. ...
My comment - do read the article and consider - if legitimate democratic government, of, by and for the people and representing their interests rather than those of profiteering industrial self-interests had been enforced from the beginning, what kind of a world would we have?
Sorry,
Halscan lied, the foul fiendish thing.
I was told the first post failed, no save, cursed, rewrote the darn thing, and now it turns out to be twins.
Really didn't need a spare...
James Austin: From what I can gather, your hard science is that some rats lived longer than others. That's not conclusive evidence for humans.
You apparently didn't finish "gathering".
First, regarding animal experiment, it's not just "some rats" that lived longer, but for any lab animal, including various breeds of hamsters, mice, rats, dogs and with or without simultaneous co-exposures to variety of pollutants, industrial toxins and carcinogens, tried over the six decades of antismoking "science", where the evaluation endpoint was natural lifespan and the "smoking" meant inhaling of tobacco smoke (rather than injecting or smearing animals with various "extracts") at doses below asphyxiation levels -- the smoking animals lived longer than the non-smoking controls (also remained thinner and performed better on cognitive test, whnever that was tested).
The closest to experiments on humans were a handful of randomized intervention trials on smokers, where a random subset was selected as "quit" group (urged & helped quit), while the control was left to smoke as they wished, then both groups were followed from several years to over a decade. While not truly randomized and free of confounding, or having full lifespan endpoints, these trials also backfired pretty badly, with "quit" group having more lung cancers or more heart attacks. Hence, after the few early trials of this kind failed to deliver the results research sponsors wanted to see, they rapidly fell out of fashion, becaming yet another taboo, and antismoking "science" re-focused on what "works", their usual heavily confounded (by self-selection) samples.
Second, and more important for my main argument, numerous protective and therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke on immune, nervous and cardio-vascular systems (see my previous posts here for the most important ones) are well established lab findings on animals and humans. Yet these effects are a strict taboo in the antismoking epidemiology, despite their obvious confounding role (e.g. via self-medication) on any sample where subjects have self-selected themselves to become one of { smokers, never-smokers or ex-smokers}, rather than via the random choice by researchers.
Deliberately ignoring the benefical effects of tobacco smoke and their obvious effect on the reasons why a subject might have become one of {smoker, never-smoker or ex-smoker}, is as flawed and fraudelant as would be a study on whether use of statins causes heart attacks, by looking at the rates of heart attacks among statin users, never-user and ex-users, while deliberately ignoring the effects of statins (lowering of LDL cholesterol) and the role of these effects on the reasons why subjects became one of {statin users, never-users, or ex-users}. The key claims of antismoking smoking "science" rest on preciesly that kind of sleight of hand.
"What if I jammed all that good stuff into a glass of gasoline and drank it, would it still be good for me?"
Interestingly, that kind of hard "science" (using injections of smoke "extracts" with some solvents) is the only kind in which the "scientists" have managed to demonstrate harm of "smoking" to lab animals, after six decades and vast resources spent trying. Plain inhalation of regular tobacco smoke, even contrived for maximum harm (but short of outright asphyxiation), seems to only benefit the health and longevity of the lab animals. (Not that you will ever hear about it at school or in mass media.)
I don't think you've said what the proper dosage is for tobacco smoke to be good for us. Is it 1 cigarette a day or 30?
Well, from animal experiments, it seems nearly anything below the brute asphyxiation, seems to be beneficial, even at several times higher doses & intensities compared to human smoking (human smokers, unlike experimental animals, also benefit from natural feedbacks for dosing & pacing).
Is it possible you're correct in your theory, but smokers can over-medicate and cause more problems than they prevent?
Looking at the most extreme case, it is impossible to kill oneself by chain smoking until you drop dead. The lethal dose of 60mg of nicotine, would require 5 hours of chain smoking (e.g. at 5 minutes per 1mg nic cigarette). Even the most testosterone drenched teen trying to impress his buddies by chain smoking 3 packs, would get so nauseous after a dozen or so sticks, with nausea becoming ever more excruciating on every further puff, that he would have to give up hours before the lethal dose is approached.
In contrast, one can kill onself by drinking even the plain water, to say nothing of the FDA approved prescription medications which kill by the several planeloads daily through overdose or through known side-effects even at the prescribed doses.
While it would be useful to have results of randomized human experiments, it seems that this ancient miracle medicine is honed so perfectly not just to protect and heal as no other medicinal substance humans have ever known, but first of all to do no harm, that nothing else we ingest for medicinal or for any other purpose, comes even close to its built in protective feedbacks, in speed, clarity, timeliness and effectiveness of the warnings.
You mentioned tobacco's been tweaked for the past 4,000(?) years. What did the tweakers use to test their tweakings, epi studies or animal experiments?
Tobacco has been smoked for at least 8000 years, cultivated for ~6000 years, tested on couple billion of lifelong test subjects. Through much of its history, it has been seen as the medicinal plant, the 'most precious gift of gods to humans'.
Further, unlike anything else we ingest into our bodies, the feedback from the 'good/bad' evaluations by our biochemical networks to the inhaled tobacco smoke is virtually instant, hence the total information of these evaluation data points is far greater than for anything else we take as medicines, foods or drinks. While the latter forms do provide nearly instant taste and smell feedbacks, such evaluations are indirect, far removed from the pertinent evaluation of the actual effects that happens minutes or hours later, when the ingested substance reaches its intended destination. In contrast, the inhaled tobacco smoke components enter the arterial bloodstream within hundreds of milliseconds, heart and brain within a second or two, which is 2-5 orders of magnitude faster than for foods & beverages.
Granted, these evaluations and feedbacks by our biochemical networks are not readouts from lab instruments. On the other hand, our biochemical networks know incomparably more about evaluating and maintaining live processes than our all of our science put together. Imagine a contest to design and build a live cell from scratch (from elemental organic & inorganic compounds). We could take all the experts and technology we have, organize them all in one mega-team, give them all the funding they ask for, and within ten years they would write a million scientific papers and learned theses, discuss and present their insights at thousands of conferences, to hundreds of thousands of other equally learned and insightful experts, and when all is said and done, they wouldn't have even built a single live organelle, a little organ of a cell, let alone a whole live cell from scratch. Yet, cellular biochemical networks achieve such mind boggling feats of molecular scale nano-engineering every day, any place, all day long, without breaking a sweat, and without talking or bragging much about it at all.
So, these little "dumb" biochemical networks do know a thing or two on evaluating effects of ingested molecules on live processes in our cells. The full evaluation and honing of the tobacco smoke, includes a vastly larger and more powerful hierarchy of intelligent networks (distributed self-programming natural computers), forming tissues, organs, human body, networks of humans forming 'markets' and social networks. Within milliseconds of each puff, the symbiotic intertwining commences, with the initial contact by the biochemical networks of lung cells and those weaved by the tobacco plant's biochemical networks into its smoke, propagating upward, through the network hiearchy, via tissues and body of smoker, then through all his interactions with outer social and market networks, feeds back eventually via tobacco farmer to the cellular networks of tobacco plant (forming their input or perception of us, their symbiotic partner).
These evaluations and feedbacks are being computed by these intertwined, mutually permeating hiearchies of networks, at all levels in all locations, at all times, in their gentle symbiotic dance unfolding over millennia and across continents. Even the computations by the biochemical network of a single cell are complex beyond our present comprehension.
Why don't you try and get your stuff published in a medical journal?
There is no "my stuff" here. The results I mentioned in this discussion are already long published. They are largely from the reasearch funded by the pharma itself or its proxies, seething with antismoking sentiment, at least in their abstracts and executive summaries (which is all that "journalists" and "health" bureaucrats will ever read). Curiously, the pharma in addition to its outwardly oriented heavily publicized antismoking junk science, which it buys on the cheap from the bottom of the barrel kinds of "scientists", uses its real scientists in its top labs
-- Oops, the post got truncated at 10,000 characters, here is the last section:
Why don't you try and get your stuff published in a medical journal?
There is no "my stuff" here. The results I mentioned in this discussion are already long published. They are largely from the reasearch funded by the pharma itself or its proxies, seething with antismoking sentiment, at least in their abstracts and executive summaries (which is all that "journalists" and "health" bureaucrats will ever read). Curiously, the pharma in addition to its outwardly oriented heavily publicized antismoking junk science, which it buys on the cheap from the bottom of the barrel kinds of "scientists", uses its real scientists in its top labs, backed up with order of magnitude more funding, for genuine, in depth and very quiet research of this biochemical miracle medicine, in hope of "stealing" some of its healing secrets. Any of these crack researchers would give anything if he could synthesize a compound that can produce one tenth of the therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke.
nightlight
My bright eyed 21 year old cat who survived a broken pelvis 15 years ago but still trots round the garden, would most likely agree with you.
She hasn't a tooth in her head, doesn't get ill,but has given up climbing trees, apart from that and the slight limp from the accident, she's doing fine.
And yes , she is slim.
http://www.catsinfo.com/catages.html
Nightlight,
I have been reading your posts for over year now and I have to say that you are the most interesting pro-smoking advocate that I have come across.
However, I do find your comment
“Having tossed the gauntlet at the residnet "experts", including the Doc himself, who all made careers out of antismoking scaremogering, after the 290+ posts of this interesting debate I haven't had to retract or back off on anything I said there. They don't have any real science on their side and they know it.”
http://www.forces.org/tavern/
vie...255bd75bce45ae9
a little arrogant but I do not speak for others and that does not affect the substance of your argument. Your last explanation about time line stuff I could not understand as I have the mathematical ability of a nine year old, and I am being kind to my self by saying that! But I think that you have “danced” around Dave K's arguments a bit and not fully addressed it. As I have no understanding of lasers,theoretical physics and maths – please indulge me.
Say for example that these four statements were true:
1. Epi studies have no idea of a relationship between radiation and cancer.
2. Epi studies consistantly show a + strong association between sunblock (users) and skin cancer.
3. Epi stidies sometimes show a weak correlation between people who are near sun block users and skin cancer.
4. Epi studies show that where age adjusted skin block use goes down, age adjusted skin cancer goes down.
Now, “Public Health” knows that the main reason people use sun block is prevent burning and that they “Public Health” are reluctant to ban it. So they say “Sun block users are at higher risk of skin cancer”. This has some effect but because their time line studies are showing that as “age adjusted skin block use goes down, age adjusted skin cancer goes down” they decide to say “Sun block causes skin cancer” on the grounds that their time line studies confirm this and that the word “cause” is more powerful than “higher risk”. And what if they decide to target where sun block is used overtly the most, beaches, and yet again they find that skin cancer goes down? Well, of course , this is yet more reason to control sun block. In Australia where there was once high sun block usage there is now less skin cancer which means in all probability that sun block causes skin cancer. Even if rodents that were exposed to sun block did not display skin cancer – this is not enough to say that “sun block” does not cause skin cancer in humans.
Now, Nightlight, while I agree with you that making smokers believe that “smoking is good for you” is the shortest way to avoid this herniating stream of lies from professional tobacco control advocates, it is just as wrong because even if we could demonstrate a cancer reducing association between Q10 (for example) in smoking tobacco – it does not mean it is better to smoke.
It may well be true what you say in that smoking is a more efficient way of ingesting some enzymes
that the human body needs, compared to ingesting vitamin pills and/or “food”. But, without knowing that sunshine is a cause of skin cancer, I would have to agree with J.Austin/Dave K and think that it is far more plausible that compounds in sun block cause cancer.
I think that Dave K and the Doctor are right that these links should be made known to the public.
I think that the Doctor is wrong that what we know is enough to justify legal intervention.
I think that you, Nightlight, are wrong to (to attempt to) make smokers believe that smoking is good for you just as I believe it wrong to (to attempt to) make smokers believe the oppersite.
But given what I have said above, I will state that one billion sun block users can not be wrong
just as I state that one billion smokers can not be wrong. It is far too easy to explain this as “addiction”. So, Nightlight, I shall continue to monitor your statements and I like your thinking.
Best Fredrik.
nightlight wrote:
"Deliberately ignoring the benefical effects of tobacco smoke and their obvious effect on the reasons why a subject might have become one of {smoker, never-smoker or ex-smoker}, is as flawed and fraudelant..."
Are you saying people take up smoking to fix some medical condition they have? I've never bought that type of argument. How do they know it will do anything unless they started smoking (drinking, etc.) previously and then noticed it?
"Tobacco has been smoked for at least 8000 years, cultivated for ~6000 years, tested on couple billion of lifelong test subjects. Through much of its history, it has been seen as the medicinal plant, the 'most precious gift of gods to humans'."
That's not what I would call any kind of real evidence.
And I've heard that beer was the most precious gift....
"There is no "my stuff" here. The results I mentioned in this discussion are already long published..."
Well, you're the only one I know who's read all that stuff so for all intents and purposes it is unpublished. LOL
I still say write it up and try to get it published because in all honesty, I'm not going to spend two(?) years researching this myself to see if you're right or wrong. I doubt few would/could/should.
And sorry to say, but I'm not going to take your word for it, and anybody who does and then is asked to back up the statement that "smoking is good for you" is not going to remember the 200,000 word response. (grin)
Like I said, I'd like to see a real debate on this...but by people who can attack or defend it knowledgeably.
...a little arrogant...
I've been told that before. English is not my native tongue and I obviously still have wooden ear for it, unable to detect when my natural bluntness begins sounding like arrogance. I can live with that.
But I think that you have "danced" around Dave K's arguments a bit and not fully addressed it.
After he had already declared 'debate over', I realized from his comment to another poster that he mistook my term "self-selected" (smokers, never-smokers, ex-smokers), to mean some kind of experimenter's sampling selection bias or error, while I meant it in the sense of smokers (or never-smokers or ex-smokers) becoming smokers due to some reasons, conscious or otherwise, which are not quantified or taken into account as the source of the sampling bias. So, we talked somewhat past each other and he never addressed squarely my main argument -- the failure of epidemiology to account for the strong self-selection bias.
My main point was that without recognizing and taking into account reasons people smoke (which I think is largely self-medication resulting from numerous protective/therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke), one cannot interpret properly positive correlation of smoking with 'smoking related' diseases. The antismoking "science" not only fails to quantify and take into account these strong confounding effects of 'self-medication as reason for smoking', but is completely silent about the numerous well established immuno-protective effects of tobacco smoke, which serve as the common basis for the self-medication reason for smoking and for the correlations with 'smoking related' diseases.
That kind of 'peculiar' blindness of antismoking "science" would be like observing statistical association between the use of sunglasses and sunburns, and "concluding" that sunglasses cause sunburns, without taking into account the main reasons people use sunglasses (to protect their eyes from excessive sunlight, hence their use is a proxy for exposure to sunlight, which itself causes sunburns). But then, in order to guard against unpleasant question about the reason for using sunglasses, which would demolish their "theory" that sunglasses cause sunburns, they have to additionally pretend that no such protective effect of sunglasses exists and that people use them only to look cool (addicts to the coolness of eyeglasses, analogous to smokers being addicts to nicotine from tobacco smoke) or to have something to twiddle about in their hands. That's exactly the kind of cheap sleight of hand on which the main claims of antismoking "science" rest.
That 'peculiarity' of the antismoking "science", along with the related virtual taboo regarding the "paradoxical" results of animal experiments (smoking animals live longer, which outright contradicts their fundamental postulate: "smoking is harmful to smoker") are the clear sign of deliberate deception.
Recalling that way back in 1958, R.A. Fisher called them out on their epidemiological bluff, and yet half a century later they are still stuck in that very same loop of endlessly parroting the same kind of stats extracted from the heavily confounded (by self-selection) samples, while refusing not only to resolve the confounding but even to acknowledge its existence. This 'strange' apparent blindness, could only mean that, despite decades of vast research efforts since 1950, they have absolutely nothing to show beyond it -- no matter how hard they tried, nothing "worked", no hard science turned up their way to extricate them out of that loop which was getting old already in 1958. Otherwise, we wouldn't be hearing any more, only how smokers are worse in this or that stat, the RRs and "confidence" (yeah, that's it) intervals are such and such....
Consider for example kids at school, when they learn about effects of acid rain on vegetation -- there is no endless talk about how oaks here and pines there, and grass over there, are all more likely, with such and such RRs for each, to die if exposed to acid rain.... They just have kids plant any odd little seeds in several pots, each watered at different pH, and the most acid ones fail to thrive and wither away. End of the story. Or show them a movie of such experiments and end 'of the story' as well. If they tried a movie with smoking animals experiments, kids would see slim and sharp smoking mice, zipping right through all the mazes, while fat non-smoking mice are getting mercy 'airlifts' by the soft-hearted technicians, after getting lost, like forever, in the middle of the maze somewhere; then as they all age, the obese non-smoking mice turning senile and dropping dead, while the little smoking fellers, still running around, slim and lively as ever, having fun for another 15-20 years in human equivalent. They surely can't ever show that, or the naive little kids might misunderstand it completely, take it all wrong, and start imagining, 'Random Mutation' forbid, that smoking is good for you. So, what can poor antismoking "scientists" do to protect these innocent children, but keep endlessly parroting the stories on smokers being more likely to be worse off on this or that, in here and over there...
Even if rodents that were exposed to sun block did not display skin cancer - this is not enough to say that "sun block" does not cause skin cancer in humans.
But imagine now, that mice with sunblocks also ends up living 20 percent longer. However you toss it, somehow it doesn't mesh well with the "harmful sunblock" theory. Further, with all class 1 carcinogens, it's much easier to get animals to develop cancers than humans. Except for tobacco smoke which doesn't cause cancer in animals at all.
Finally, we are six decades into antismoking "science" and the grace period is long past for divining this late into the story, the meaning of vague epidemiological hints extracted from self-selected samples. We already have plenty of hard science on specific protective effects of tobacco smoke in humans and animals, which are especially dramatic for immune and nervous system. Why doesn't epidemiology even recognize their existence, let alone quantify their confounding effects and adjust for them?
And why is none of that, or any of the animal lifespan results, on the cigarette pack warnings? After all, on some foods and beverages, one can see that some ingredient is an "animal carcinogen" or "causes cancer in lab animals". How about having on cigarette packs -- 'smoking extends lifespan of lab animals by 20 percent' or 'protects lab animals from obesity'...?
...making smokers believe that "smoking is good for you" is the shortest way...
... to falling off the deep end. That is, if it were not absolutely true. It's not just Q10, or two or three obscure and minor beneficial effects. It is literally dozens, with all the most fundamental levers of good health, youthfulness and longevity, each one is pushed in the right direction by this biochemical miracle. Any time I run into a story on some 'latest discovery' on new biochemical mechanism of longevity,... I check the literature on how does tobacco smoke or nicotine or low dose CO or NO... affect that mechanism and invariably find that TS pushes them in the "good" direction. For example, 2007 news story "Scientists find elixir of eternal life", which turns out to be boost of SOD enzyme. I check pubmed, and what do you know -- tobacco smoke upregulates SOD (doubling it). Related story for 2008 experiments: SOD & catalase (mimetics) prevent cognitive decline in aged mice. Of course, tobacco smoke nearly doubles each... and so on and on. Same story. Every time. Those ancient medicine men have surely got one mighty juju in this 'most precious gift' from their gods.
nightlight,
I find what you say very interesting but I am not yet convinced. I remember once chatting to a scientist
at a party who was involved in research aimed a finding out what the relationship between dementia and smoking was all about. He kept on giving me the "we know smoking is bad for you but the interesting thing is ..." type stuff. Eventually he nuged his friend and said "give me one of those" and his friend produced a cigar. Which, naturally, he then happily smoked. Part time smokers are such a burden on the rest of us!
Are you saying people take up smoking to fix some medical condition they have? ... How do they know it will do anything unless they started smoking (drinking, etc.) previously and then noticed it?
Most teens will either experiment briefly with smoking or be around friends who do. If a kid has an asthma, or just cold or any flue-like feel, they will notice immediate relief from smoking due to the anti-inflammatory effects and dopamine boost (the same effect used by OTC cold medications). Even medical textbooks advised smoking for asthma until 1950s. There is also in novice smokers a mild euphoric effect which may attract them to experiment by word of mouth. Or, as in the example of those German aluminum workers cited earlier, a young new employee may notice that most workers in the potroom smoked and those who did smoke were clearly doing much better (sixfold reduction in respiratory problems).
It may also be smoking by their parents or older siblings or other close relatives, who may share their genetic makeup, including any innate immune weaknesses (such as low glutathione, or catalase which detoxes, among others, alcohol and is thus easy to notice), that induces them to smoke. Tobacco smoke also raises tolerance to pain, physical or mental stresses and hardships, hunger, boosts testosterone (hence its popularity among soldiers & sailors). It has antidepressant and anti-anxiety effects, hence many teens would perceive that benefit easily. It is also stimulant of nervous system with powerful nootropic (smart drug) effects due to its boost of acteylcholine and dopamine, which helps with school work, focus, memory, games, socializing, verbosity...
There are myriad of ways and paths through nearly everyone had at least a brief experience with tobacco smoke and sensed at least some small or large benefit. The latter would be more likely to continue smoking, while the former would, in the present antismoking hysteria, see it as not worth the trouble and drop it for the time being. But their body, from cellular biochemical networks, up to their conscious mind, will remember it, each in its own way.
Let's say, one of these kids who dropped it is now in his early twenties, and he got a job at that German aluminum plant. The fumes in the potroom are noxious, overloading his immune system, and he would perceive it as a kind of flue-like malaise. Be it by explicitly remembering effects from his smoking experiments few years ago, or by the low level memory stored in his biochemical networks about anti-inflammatory effects, or by observing workers around him and imitating those who seem to be doing better (smokers), he might instinctively pick up smoking, just like sick cats and dogs will instinctively seek and nibble at various plants in the garden, or as pregnant women will crave strange foods.
While all of the above may seem like a random list of quirky effects and little chaotic facts, there is a much larger, coherent pattern encapsulating them all. As sketched in my previous reply to you, each of us is tightly intertwined in multitude of adaptable networks (which are a kind of distributed self-programming computers, functioning as intelligent, anticipatory systems, each with a 'mind of its own'), from the lowest level biochemical networks of our cells, through the nested hierarchy of larger networks making up our body, then interfacing and mutually permeating with hierarchies of outer networks (in material realm: social, economic, money, eco-webs, internet communities,... and in abstract realms: cultural nets, languages, religions, sciences,... ). All these networks continuously tug on each of us with myriad tiny 'threads' (the network connections), every which way and at every level of our beings, each seeking to direct some of our actions, or to color some aspects of them, in a 'pursuit of its own happiness' in the sense of optimizing its own punishments and rewards, which computes based on its memories, perceptions and experiences.
Many of these networks, inner and outer, in material and abstract realms, do "know" about the effects of tobacco smoke, each in its own way as encoded in its own particular kinds of adaptable links and nodes. For example, this particular tiny social network, tugging on each of us right now, centered around Dr. Siegel's blog entries, has that information on benefits of tobacco smoke encoded explicitly, in plain English and with links to papers and references. But this little network is intertwined, through its cross links to many other small and large networks, some enveloping it, some overlapping with it to various degrees, hence they all have that particular knowledge encoded (peripherally at least). More interestingly, the language networks, or word webs in the abstract realm have it also encoded it and "know" it now, since the search engines will retrieve it when queried on word combinations such as ( benefits + smoking + glutathione + catalase) or ("smoking is good for you") and thousands others, each such word pattern resonating strongly with some text fragments here. And of course, anyone reading here will also have some facts encoded in the networks of their neurons, as conscious or subconscious memories. That doesn't mean, of course, you or anyone is convinced by anything read here, but it is there to be recalled, weighed against related info at any future time, when it will be reinforced or diminished.
Hence, all the facts about effects of tobacco smoke, from every source, are spread across, encoded and known by myriad networks, many of which you or anyone else reading is interacting with. Many of these encodings, or 'ways of knowing', are not in anything that resembles English or any human language or even any humanly comprehensible conceptual scheme e.g. a cellular biochemical networks might encode such knowledge within their own inner model of the laws of physics, biochemistry, biology... which are completely impenetrable to human ways of understanding patterns of nature (it may have gotten encoded there as result of a brief smoking experiment years ago or from just few random whiffs of ETS).
At some later time, as some of your internal networks encounter a problem at some level (from biochemical networks to your brain), may through their computations, after all pros and cons it knows about are weighed and evaluated, resonate positively with some snippet of the network's knowledge about positive effects of tobacco smoke, indicating tobacco smoke as the preferred solution at that level. That network will then signal the solution proposal "need tobacco smoke" (in its own language) upstream to the enclosing network, where the proposal gets translated to its 'way of knowing', then weighed and evaluated against all its relevant knowledge, and so on, until it either gets squelched at some level or it makes it to your top decision making level, and you would at that moment feel an 'instinctive' blip "need to try tobacco smoke". Of course, at this stage the outer networks get involved, with their own evaluations and their resulting tugs and pulls on you e.g. if your wife is absolutely horrified of smoking, your internal "solution" may reevaluate now as a 'no go' path, and the plan B, see you doc and get some prescription medicine, becomes the new 'best' solution.
In short, all the knowledge about the medicinal effects of tobacco smoke, in all its forms and meanings, is well encoded and remembered at all levels and all places, spread in a fractal-like or hologram-like fashion, within our overall social network/organism (ancient sages would have perceived mind of that network as 'god of his people'), ready to be recalled and acted upon, when the need is there and the place and the circumstances are right.
And sorry to say, but I'm not going to take your word for it...
You shouldn't, of course. Every stated scientific fact about tobacco smoke & its effects, is a link or two away from a journal, book or some other generally respectable reference. Links I provided here, either point to such reference, or to another post/web page which has the link or citation to such reference. If you or anyone else is suspicious about any stated fact, it's easy enough to check it. I would also be grateful and more than glad to correct anything I think I know, that isn't quite so.
nightlight,
I think you may have won me over.
I think the following statments hold true.
1. There will always be a strong statistical association between toxic compounds and morbidity and mortality.
2. There will always be a strong statistical association between medicinal compounds and morbidity and mortality.
3. It is less likley that there are one billion smokers because smoking is detrimental.
4. It is more likley that there are one billion smokers because smoking is benificial.
nightlight,
You have won me over, well done.
I think the following statments hold true....
That's a new angle I didn't spot before. It shows once more that all roads do lead to Rome.
Fredrik Eich wrote:
"I think the following statments hold true."
"1. There will always be a strong statistical association between toxic compounds and morbidity and mortality."
"2. There will always be a strong statistical association between medicinal compounds and morbidity and mortality."
Yes, because for one reason, it's sick people who take medicine.
"3. It is less likley that there are one billion smokers because smoking is detrimental."
It is if you started with two billion. LOL
"4. It is more likley that there are one billion smokers because smoking is benificial."
The majority of drivers speed. They find getting somewhere sooner as beneficial. But it doesn't mean they live longer.
I'll still wait for some hard evidence.
And if none ever comes to be, well I didn't start smoking because it was good for me, and I've never worried about the "Smoking is bad for you" stuff, so I guess I can wait.
James,
1 billion, 1.2 billion or 2 billion - there are a lot of smokers!
Maybe continuing with your car analogy. If you needed a new starter motor you could
1.take another car apart to get a new one (burning food in the stomach)
2.make one out of raw metals (swallowing a load of vit pills )
3.grabbing a ready made one of a shelf in a store ( ingestion by inhilation)
The third option is the most efficient and maybe in the body produces less toxins.
It may be that the lung will grab new parts (when it can) from the organic soup of air that we dwell in. But this is random, the burning of tobacco is an act of will to change the odds. I see no reason to belive the cultivation of tobacco is any less an evoutionary step than the cultivation of bananas
in hot climates being consumed by people living in Norway. It is just shifting the odds in favour of survival!
I don't find nightlight's argument - that smoking is good for you - at all implausible. It may run counter to at least 60 years of public vilification of smoking, but in a time when it has become clear that these critics of tobacco have been at very least overstating their case (quite possibly systematically for a very long time), the contrary assertion comes as a refreshing change.
But I simply don't think that people smoke for any of the purported medicinal benefits, real or not. They smoke because they are stressed and anxious, and smoking helps relax and soothe them. This is exactly the same reason, if through different biochemical pathways, that most people drink alcohol: they enjoy, after a while, a sense of relaxation and wellbeing. And again, it is the very same reason, again through different biochemical pathways, that many people smoke opium: they once again enjoy, in an intense way, a sense of peace and tranquillity.
Perhaps describing the effect of these various drugs might yet be classed as medicinal rather than recreational. What is the difference between the aspirin tablet that relieves a headache, and the cigarette that relieves psychological stress? Is psychological stress no less real for being imaginary in nature?
Cigarette smoking really took off during WWI, when the troops began demanding cigarettes. This shouldn't be at all surprising. Soldiers who are sitting in trenches for months on end, suffering bombardment and attack and every other sort of deprivation (cold, wet, hungry), are under the most extreme psychological stress, and cigarettes were their lifeline. They probably preferred ready-made cigarettes because they were quick to prepare (no hand rolling of roll-ups, not loading of pipes) and to consume (added saltpetre kept them alight). They were the fast food of tobacco consumption, in which pipes and cigars were its haute cuisine.
What applies to soldiers applies also, although to a lesser degree, to the rush and bustle of ordinary everyday life. That also is very frequently psychologically stressful. And so it should come as no surprise that many millions of men and women also take refuge in tobacco, just like the soldiers in the trenches before them.
In an ideal, stress-free world, in which there was no war, and no grinding tedium of daily work, perhaps men and women would have no need for tobacco. Or alcohol. Or opium. But that does not mean that if tobacco and alcohol and opium were forbidden, that ours would become an ideal world.
And if we are to forbid the use of tobacco and alcohol and opium, then why not forbid the use of aspirin as well? And indeed all medical treatment that serves to relieve pain? Or are we banning tobacco because we believe that the aching head that comes with psychological stress is imaginary (and unreal) in ways that we believe that the aching head that comes with a headache is real - that psychological pain is less real than physical pain? The military high command that provided their soldiers with tobacco to relieve their psychological stress were generally unimpressed by Shell Shock: all too often shell-shocked soldiers were simply lined up and shot for deserting their posts. Is this what is now happening to smokers? That they are being lined up and shot for desertion?
A billion bannana eaters can't be wrong!
To put what I just wrote another way, nightlight seems to concentrate on physical benefits of smoking, while downplaying psychological benefits:
Coenzyme Q10, the popular heart miracle supplement,... vascular growth factor boost from nicotine,... peripheral circulation stimulus from low dose Nitric Oxide,... cholesterol optimizing niacin,... anti-apopototic, oxygenation stimulating low dose Carbon Monoxide,... heart muscle cells mitochondrial antioxidant protection from doubled SOD...
But while these benefits may be real, surely that's not why smokers smoke. Or, at least, not the principal reason. Smokers smoke to relieve psychological stress. The soldiers in WWI trenches were not concerned to boost their Q10 or niacin intake.
In many ways antismokers are denying either that psychological stress is real, or that smoking relieves this stress, or both. In their view smoking is wholly without any benefit whatsoever, and is purely addictive in nature. And it seems to me that this antismoking attitude is deeply rooted in a Western 'physical' mode of thought, in which physical events (the motion of planets, the impact of bullets) are the only real events, and psychological events (grief, happiness, etc) are insubstantial, peripheral epiphenomena.
And in many ways nightlight's approach is thoroughly Western in this respect. He concentrates on the (real) physical benefits of smoking tobacco, and largely leaves aside the (unreal) psychological benefits of it. His arguments are powerful precisely because they are physical in character, and are attractive to Westerners for whom reality is physical, tangible, measurable stuff, and not vague, diffuse, intangible 'feelings' and 'emotions'. Antismoking, as such, may grow out of a 'heartless' Western mindset in which psychological states like 'stress' aren't regarded as being quite as real as physical conditions like fractured limbs. Your broken bones are real, but not your broken heart. We have hi-tech hospitals for the former, but nothing equivalent for the latter, except the advice to "get over it."
On the same line, the fact that antismokers always emphasize the (supposed) physical health benefits of smoking bans shows the strange one-sided nature of their thinking.
They never, for example, have anything to say about psychological stress, anxiety, or worry. They don't seem in the least bothered that smokers will no longer have access to something that relieves them of stress. And probably this is because, for antismokers, such stress is entirely imaginary, and therefore unreal, and so inconsequential.
The same applies to community. Smoking bans shatter communities, as they prevent people meeting to enjoy a few beers and smokes over a chat. Antismokers seem to have no more grasp of 'community' than they do of 'stress' or 'anxiety'. And perhaps this grows out of a physical model in which community, if it exists at all, is simply the proximate location in space of persons, measurable in metres - something which actually is not affected by smoking bans. But what I mean by community is a complex network of intertwined friendships and acquaintanceships, a source of news and advice and assistance and companionship, none of which are physically measurable. And because it is not physically measurable, it would seem that 'community' simply doesn't exist for antismokers.
If antismokers are very often quite well-to-do - Banzhaf is a lawyer, Repace an engineer, Bloomberg a millionaire mayor -, it may well be that they don't suffer very much stress in their lives, and aren't members of communities. Does Banzhaf roll into his local bar after a hard day's antismoking campaigning? I doubt it. Most likely they simply don't understand what they themselves don't experience. After all, these days it tends to be the working classes - the most stressed, rushed, busy - who smoke the most.
Idlex
"If antismokers are very often quite well-to-do - Banzhaf is a lawyer, Repace an engineer, Bloomberg a millionaire mayor -,"
Is not the professions that make the money, its the daily preaches, studies, etc funded by smokers taxes, donations to the "charites" (Cancer society, lung assoc), gov't grants & funding, funding from RWJF and we can't forget NGO's! Hey there is one "researcher" making 4.1 Million year!
Prof's butt-out battle
Researcher wins $4.1M funding to build better tobacco controls
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2157
"If you needed a new starter motor you could
1.take another car apart...
2.make one out of raw materials...
3.grabbing a ready made one of a shelf in a store..."
Or 4. Go to the dealer and have it replaced under warranty.
Okay, so that's really #3, but I thought it was funny. LOL
äåâóøêà â ñåêñóàëüíîì ïëàòüå äåâóøêà â ñïåðìå äåâóøêà â ñòðàõå îòïðÿíóëà äåâóøêà â õàðüêîâå äëÿ ñåêñà äåâóøêà âáåëîì êîôòå çàíåìàåòñÿ ñåêñîì äåâóøêà âèáðàòîðîì òðàõàåò ïàðíÿ http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...chit-
chlen.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...chila-
foto.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...-pri-
parne.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...dlya-
seksa.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...t-u-
parnya.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...vi-
skachat.html
äåâóøêà äåëàåò ìèíåò ñêà÷àòü äåâóøêà äåëàåò ìèíåò ñîáàêå äåâóøêà äåëàåò ìèíåò ôîòî äåâóøêà äåðæèò ÷ëåí äåâóøêà äëÿ àíàëüíîãî îñìîòðà äåâóøêà äëÿ ñåêñ http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...sya-
seksom.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...or-
skachat.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...china-
seks.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...-
besplatno.html http://findpillsshop.com/
devushk...vibratorom.html http://findpillsshop.com/
devushk...sturbaciey.html http://findpillsshop.com/
devushk...sturbiruet.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...aet-
struey.html http://findpillsshop.com/devushk...tit-
spermu.html
Commenting by HaloScan
