Were these rats specifically bred to exhibit these symptoms ? Like they were supposed to when they were kept in a highly toxic enviroment in order to contract lung cancer,which was never successfully achieved,if i remember correctly? Come on,i was always under the impression that drinking alcohol was the worst thing to do ? So having a cigarette is now the most evil thing to do whilst being pregnant.Bullshit,if it helps keep an expectant mother calm and relaxed,thus lowering blood pressure it's worth something.The modern world wants natural products,NRT ain't.So show us all the CHILDREN who have suffered .Scaremongering,money grabbing corruption at its best.Spin us another.
There is so much bull manure here I do not even know where to begin. My daughter was born in 1998 and my OB didn't harp on me about smoking, in fact she told me the same thing about smoking as she did about coffee, cut it back a bit. I stopped drinking beer and wine (the only alcohol I drink) when I realized I was pregnant, but my OB told me I could treat myself when I was back in NYC for my 20th class reunion and have a glass or 2 of wine.
If smoking while pregnant is so horrible to the developing baby in terms of mental abilities, etc. could one of you alleged health specialists explain why so many of us now in our 40s and 50s excelled all through school, won scholarships to college and have made productive members of society of ourselves even though our mothers smoked, and most likely drank, while pregnant? And all of us excelled in school long before the dumbing down and PC crap in the schools started.
The credibility of the anti-smoker cartel, I'm sorry the tobacco control movement, is so non-existent at this point among normal people that are having to reach for any possible scare mongering technique you possibly can.
Calling you snake oil salesmen would be an insult to the old time snake oil salesmen.
Michael; I commend you choice of subject matter. Not nearly enough is being discussed in the public to counter the recent claims of safety. As I posted once before we should in this case take the worst case approach at least until we know more.
We have learned this lesson before as I also pointed out, in knowing for a too short time, a special child who was a victim of hasty medical opinions, Selling morning sickness cures.
BTW the reduced cognative ability study needs to be looked at a little closer. The statement the highest losses as with previous tested lead by the same author exibited the highest cognative losses. What she in fact found was consistent with physical science Nicotenne is memory enhancing and cognative protective. The researcher has no pants.
Sorry that should have read
"The highest losses were found with the lowest exposures. We could not find a level were no losses were found."
In reality higher losses were found in the un-expossed group. Who were not among the more afluent groups.
In short the lower income and specifically black kids exibited higher cognative losses.
Most likely due to the similar exposures of the same subjects to lead and not cigarette smoke.
This is the research which needs a lot more scrutiny
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/
...ourcetype=HWCIT
RESULTS: Smoking mothers were younger, weighed less, consumed more alcohol, and had received less education. Children exposed to prenatal tobacco smoking had no increase in congenital malformations prevalence compared with the nonexposed children in both crude and adjusted analyses. Children born to nonsmokers, but who used nicotine substitutes, had a slightly increased relative congenital malformations prevalence ratio; relative prevalence rate ratio was 1.61 (95% confidence interval 1.01–2.5
, which represents a 60% increased risk. When the analysis was restricted to musculoskeletal malformations, the relative prevalence rate ratio was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 1.53–4.52).
CONCLUSION: Our results showed no increase in congenital malformations related to prenatal tobacco smoking. However, we identified an increase of malformations risk in nonsmokers using nicotine substitutes. This finding needs to be replicated in other data sources.
Any plans to shoot this over to the UC Regents and Senate who are considering -- at the behest of Glantz -- ending taking funding from the tobacco companies for research, because it's alleged it results in biased research, and dragging Enstrom through the streets to do so?
But oh no... there's no slippery slope there or anything as bad a BT when it comes to allegations of research fraud, is there.
(all for argument's sake. I say let them all fund and let the work speak for itself -- which is my point for UC)
Questions arise:
As in the study Kevin linked where the RR from active smoking was 0 and for patches 1.6, is there evidence that "for the children" a pregnant woman would actually be better off smoking than using NRT?
In other words, in order of alleged risk to the fetus: 1. Not smoking, 2. Smoking, 3. NRT (??)
Question #2:
Moving on to the non-pregnant: Sounds as tho the author is against harm reduction (presuming that nicotine replacement reduces harm) in much the same manner than many oppose methadone or even condoms. He seems to be claiming that it's too "easy" an answer to a zero tolerance question. Or am I reading the guy wrong?
Walt-
I think that is exactly the concern. The paper that Kevin shared does indicate that NRT posed a greater risk to the fetus than smoking. That's very concerning, because we could actually be doing harm by advising NRT use. That's why it's so disturbing that our recommendations are being developed by scientists who have severe financial conflicts of interest.
Since NRT is a less hazardous alternative to cigarette smoking, why did the authors of this article choose to compare the risks of NRT use during pregnancy with the risks of total nicotine abstinence during pregnancy (instead of comparing it to the risks of continued smoking during pregnancey)?
The answer is that the authors of the article not only oppose the use of all tobacco products, but also oppose the use of clean nicotine products.
This is similar to abstinence-only tobacco control advocates choosing to compare the risks of smokeless tobacco only to the risks of total tobacco abstinence (instead of comparing it with the risks of cigarette smoking).
It's disingenous and illogicl to compare A with B in an attempt to conclude that B is not a safe alternative to C.
Why ever not Bill,you do it all the time,and unless you have either experienced pregnancy or been a close spousal partner throughout you're speaking through what you sit on,luckily this does very little harm since people see through your rhetoric and dummy throwing episodes.
I'm sorry, I used an NRT product and it just made me very ill...For someone who was smoking two packs a day the Nicoderm patch was poisoning me...I see nothing "clean" about something dishing out obviously more nicotine to the extent of making me very ill. And what's so damn clean about it? You keep saying "clean" nicotine...did someone toss it through a dishwasher?
I'd think a truly "clean" nicotine product would be tobacco that has not been processed at all, at which point, none of your pet projects would classify in the slightest.
Bill wrote:
The answer is that the authors of the article not only oppose the use of all tobacco products, but also oppose the use of clean nicotine products.
This is similar to abstinence-only tobacco control advocates choosing to compare the risks of smokeless tobacco only to the risks of total tobacco abstinence (instead of comparing it with the risks of cigarette smoking).
Bill, we understand where you come from and where you are getting at. But you are wrong: comparing is not advocating! The authors are free to choose whatever the like as long as the say what they are doing and are not trying to fraudulently distort the findings.
Feel free do a study under your own premises, but don't distort the facts.
Bill, you wrote
"Since NRT is a less hazardous alternative to cigarette smoking, why did the authors of this article choose to compare the risks of NRT use during pregnancy with the risks of total nicotine abstinence during pregnancy (instead of comparing it to the risks of continued smoking during pregnancey)?"
The study says
OBJECTIVE: We examined whether maternal smoking and use of nicotine substitutes during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy increased the prevalence of congenital malformations in general and of certain congenital malformations in particular.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed no increase in congenital malformations related to prenatal tobacco smoking. However, we identified an increase of malformations risk in nonsmokers using nicotine substitutes.
I know I am tired, but the study clearly states that it is comparing maternal smoking during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and non-smokers using NRT Total nicotine abstinence is not mentioned.
GreatScot
Benpal,
You know the real problem is that Bill is just upset since it's HIS FAVORITE product that is suddenly under a teensy weensy bit of attack. Could you imagine if it were as full blown an attack as you and I and the rest of us here have to tolerate? hehehehehe
Bill,
WHAT exactly is "clean nicotine"? Do you honestly expect me to trust that chemically created nicotine by a pharmaceutical company is "clean"? To me, and obviously Jalestra, clean nicotine is tobacco that the corporations and government haven't messed with. You know, like growing it in your own backyard, curing it yourself and then smoking it.............can't get any cleaner than that in my book.
It appears the use of the word Clean as a discriptor has certain problems for instance refering to spitting can hardly be placed in the clean category. Would you have a spitoon on your living room table in place of an ashtray?
If the research methods which demonstrate ETS is a hazard were applied without bias, which to date few have, we would know a lot more about what is being promoted.
I am in total agreement with Michael Too much is hinging on the paid opinions here and I would be right beside him telling pregnant women to get off the smokes COLD TURKEY, as it can not be worth the risk you may be taking for someone who depends on you.
If a choice between having an occasional smoke and using the alternatives? The risk is much higher using unknown products, history has shown us smoking risk is slight among smoking mothers if significant moderation is employed. If she is unduly stressed by quiting that is a risk as well, a mother's intuition is not something to take lightly. She should be free to make her own choices, based in nothing less than the best non political information available.
It is irresponsible to advise a mother to be, of anything less or anything of less value.
Commenting by HaloScan
