.

Smoking Kills - Experiment, Medical Facts and Statistics

I. Medical Facts; II. Amazing Experiment; III. List of Chemicals and Additives; IV.  Smoking Deat...

I. Medical Facts;
II. Amazing Experiment;
III. List of Chemicals and Additives;
IV. Smoking Deaths Worldwide;

I. The effects of smoking on human health are serious and in many cases, deadly. There are approximately 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the internal functioning of organs to the efficiency of the body's immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread.
Smoking Effects on the Human Body:

- Toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body, causing damage in several different ways.

- Nicotine reaches the brain within 10 seconds after smoke is inhaled. It has been found in every part of the body and in breast milk.

- Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen.

- Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.

- The carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene binds to cells in the airways and major organs of smokers.

- Smoking affects the function of the immune system and may increase the risk for respiratory and other infections.

- There are several likely ways that cigarette smoke does its damage. One is oxidative stress that mutates DNA, promotes atherosclerosis, and leads to chronic lung injury. Oxidative stress is thought to be the general mechanism behind the aging process, contributing to the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and COPD.

- The body produces antioxidants to help repair damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than do nonsmokers.

- Smoking is associated with higher levels of chronic inflammation, another damaging process that may result in oxidative stress.
II. Amazing Experiment:
III. What do we really inhale when smoking?

When the chemicals in cigarettes are inhaled, they put our bodies into a state of physical stress by sending literally thousands of poisons, toxic metals and carcinogens coursing through our bloodstream with every puff we take. And those chemicals affect everything from blood pressure and pulse rate to the health of our organs and immune system.

Let's take a closer look at some of the harmful chemicals in cigarettes and how they affect our health.

Chemicals in Cigarettes: Carcinogens

A carcinogen is defined as any substance that can cause or aggravate cancer. Approximately 60 of the chemicals in cigarettes are known to cause cancer.

Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs): are known to be some of the most potent carcinogens present in smokeless tobacco, snuff and tobacco smoke.

Benzene: can be found in pesticides and gasoline. It is present in high levels in cigarette smoke and accounts for half of all human exposure to this hazardous chemical.

Pesticides: are used on our lawns and gardens, and inhaled into our lungs via cigarette smoke.

Formaldehyde: is a chemical used to preserve dead bodies, and is responsible for some of the nose, throat and eye irritation smokers experience when breathing in cigarette smoke.

Chemicals in Cigarettes: Toxic Metals

Toxic / heavy metals are metals and metal compounds that have the potential to harm our health when absorbed or inhaled. In very small amounts, some of these metals support life, but when taken in large amounts, can become toxic.

Arsenic: commonly used in rat poison, arsenic finds its way into cigarette smoke through some of the pesticides that are used in tobacco farming.

Cadmium: is a toxic heavy metal that is used in batteries. Smokers typically have twice as much cadmium in their bodies as nonsmokers.

Chemicals in Cigarettes: Radioactive Toxic Metals

There are a couple of toxic metals in cigarette smoke that carry an extra punch of danger for anyone breathing it in: they are radioactive.

Radioactive Cigarette Smoke Lead-210 (Pb-210) and polonium-210 (Po-210) are poisonous, radioactive heavy metals that research has shown to be present in cigarette smoke.

Chemicals in Cigarettes: Poisons

Poison is defined as any substance that, when introduced to a living organism, causes severe physical distress or death. Science has discovered approximately 200 poisonous gases in cigarette smoke.

Ammonia: compounds are commonly used in cleaning products and fertilizers. Ammonia is also used to boost the impact of nicotine in manufactured cigarettes.

Carbon monoxide: is present in car exhaust and is lethal in very large amounts. Cigarette smoke can contain high levels of carbon monoxide.

Hydrogen cyanide: was used to kill people in the gas chambers in Nazi Germany during World War II. It can be found in cigarette smoke.

Nicotine: is a poison used in pesticides and is the addictive element in cigarettes.

+ 599 Additives

The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret.

A Word About Secondhand Smoke

Also known as environmental tobacco smoke, secondhand smoke is a term used to describe cigarette smoke that comes from two sources: Smoke that is exhaled by the smoker (mainstream smoke) and smoke produced by a smouldering cigarette (sidestream smoke). 

Secondhand smoke is known to contain at least 250 toxic chemicals, including 50 cancer-causing chemicals. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That means if you can smell cigarette smoke in the air, it could be harming your health.

Articles by Terry Martin, for About.com

The Effects of Smoking on Human HealthChemicals in Cigarettes: What They Are and How They Harm UsWhat's in a cigarette?

IV. Smoking Deaths Worldwide

Around 5.4 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco.

Smoking is set to kill 6.5 million people in 2015 and 8.3 million humans in 2030, with the biggest rise in low-and middle-income countries.

Every 6.5 seconds a current or former smoker dies, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

An estimated 1.3 billion people are smokers worldwide (WHO).

Over 443,000 Americans (over 18 percent of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them.

1.2 million people in China die because of smoking each year. That's 2,000 people a day.

33 percent to 50 percent of all smokers are killed by their habit.

Smokers die on average 15 years sooner than nonsmokers.

Between 33 percent and 50 percent of all smokers will die an average of 15 years sooner than nonsmokers, the Tobacco Atlas from the World Lung Foundation and the American Cancer Society believes.

Around 100 million people died because of tobacco use in the 20th century. 10 years of life are robbed from smokers because they die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers. Smoking also steals 10 years of physical functioning in old age (making smokers act really old), according to Live Fast, Die Young, Leave a Good-Looking Corpse by David M. Burns, MD (Archives of Internal Medicine).

Smoking causes more death and disability than any single disease (World Health Organization).

A "death clock" now follows the tobacco use death toll since October 1999, just under 40 million and counting. It was set up by the World Health Organization in October 2008.

650,000 Europeans die each year from tobacco-related diseases, EU figures reveal.

Quitting smoking is being attributed to Victorian (Australia) males born in 2006 having a life expectancy of 80 years old. This puts them ahead of Japanese men's average life expectancy of 79 years.

Highest US smoking death rate according to the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report:
* Kentucky
* West Virginia
* Nevada
* Mississippi
* Oklahoma
* Tennessee
* Arkansas
* Alabama
* Indiana
* Missouri

The lowest US death rates from smoking were Utah and Hawaii (CDC).

In India, about 900,000 Indians a year die from smoking-related diseases, that's nearly one in 10 of all deaths in India. Half of Indian males use tobacco and it is becoming more popular with younger people.

In Russia, smoking kills between 400,000 and 500,000 Russians every year from smoking ailments.

In Japan, smoking is the leading cause of death and is responsible for 20% of all cancers. 50 percent of men and 14 percent of women smoke.

About 140,000 Germans die every year from tobacco-related illnesses. Nearly one in three German adults smokes regularly. Some studies estimate that 3,000-4,000 deaths per year can be attributed to passive smoking.

In the UK, 90,000 people die from smoking each year.

In Turkey, around 110,000 people each year die of smoking-related illnesses, according to official figures.

In France, there are about 66,000 smoking-related deaths each year and up to 5,800 deaths from passive smoking, inhaling the smoke of smokers. About 12 million people are smokers, 25 percent of the population.

In Spain, there are 50,000 smoking-related deaths annually. About 30 percent of Spaniards smoke.

In Canada, 37,000 people die from smoking every year, according to the Ministry of Health.

In Greece, where 45% of the population smokes, an estimated 20,000 people die of smoking-related diseases each year. 600 people die every year from passive smoking. The number of smokers in Greece has gone up 10 percent in 10 years).

In Australia, 15,000 to 19,000 Australians deaths each year are caused by smoking. Roughly 20% of the Australian population smokes. Government officials are trying to address the issue. More than 4,000 Victorians die from soming every year. More than 3,400 Queenslanders die because of smoking each year.

13,000 Scots are killed every year by tobacco where about 30% of the population smokes. Up to 2,000 people die of passive smoking annually. Smoking kills 6 times more Scots than accidents, murder, suicide, falls and poisoning combined (Edinburgh Evening News).

In Ireland, 6,000 people die each year from smoking-related diseases. Smoking-related illnesses kill 2,500 people in Northern Ireland each year.

More than two thirds of the world's smokers live in just 10 countries (WHO):
1. China
2. India
3. Indonesia
4. Russia
5. US
6. Japan
7. Brazil
8. Bangladesh
9. Germany
10. Turkey

Ready to die in middle age? Keep smoking, according to researchers in Norway who tracked more than 50,000 people for a quarter century.

"Tobacco shortens the lifespan of smokers by 25 years with about 70% of people who begin smoking from their teens die by age 45", Dr. Akwasi Osei, Chief Psychiatrist at the Accra Psychiatric Hospital said.

Quit smoking and watch the risk of dying in middle age quickly fall. Give yourself the chance to live longer.

41 percent of men who smoked a pack or more a day died in middle age, compared to 14 percent of those who never smoked.

26 percent of women who smoked heavily died in middle age, compared to 9 percent of those who never smoked.

44.5 million Americans, currently smoke or about 21 percent of American adults, according to estimates from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

168,000 Americans died of cancer due to tobacco use in 2007 (American Cancer Society).

Kentucky is #1. That is, the state with the highest smoking rate and the most smoking related deaths in the US.

Smoking-related deaths in NYC fell more than 11 percent from 8,722 to 7,744 during 2002 to 2006 (after the New York City smoking ban).

Up to 2.5 million people in China will die annually by 2025, if growing tobacco use in China continues at current trends the Beijing Daily Messenger reported, citing World Health Organization (WHO) estimates.

Tobacco use will kill 1 billion people in the 21st century if current smoking trends continue.

Source: inforesearchlab.com
More: International Smoking Facts
V. Smoking: The Financial Cost

According to betterhealth.vic.gov.au, you would save about $2,500 in six months and about  $5,100 in one year for quitting smoke (calculated at one pack/day). And if you persuade your life partner to quit smoking as well, you could save twice as much. That's about $51,000 in five years. You could buy a new car or put a deposit on a new house, all while staying healthy and fresh. Do you think it's worth it?

CLICK OR CALL TO QUIT SMOKING: 1-877-44U-QUIT (that's: 1-877-448-7848 ) or search local help.


Dear Friends,
HumansAreFree.com is and will always be free to access and use. If you appreciate my work, please help me continue.

Stay updated via Email Newsletter:

Related

Healthcare 5754193352171185621

Post a Comment

  1. This is a very clear demonstration of what smoking does to the human body, and the effect on quality and quantity (lifespan). It's time to get some stop smoking help, and live the happy life you deserve!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Alex have you ever thought of moving your site to WordPress?(http://wordpress.org) Your site would look much better and WordPress has so much more customization you can do to your site also you would own everything instead of having blogger host it for you. I would even help you do this for free lol.. I love reading your site just figured I could help the best way I can. Which is WordPress. Anyways love and light brother.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Complete and utter B.S.

    Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco

    Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco is a book of the same name exploring the links between smoking and disease and exposing the anti-smoking lobby's deceit ...

    smokescreens.org

    ReplyDelete
  4. Smokers live the LONGEST. Look at the heaviest smokers, Japanese, French, Greece. Search: Worlds Oldest Smokers and find out for your self.

    Smoking has decreased by 50% in America in the last 30 years but heart disease and lung cancer are through the roof.

    If it was bad and did shorten people's life's if would be promoted as healthy. But actually it helps to chelate fluoride from the brain. Not good if your trying to make an empathetic society.

    Smoking increases longevity in many people and independent thinking in most.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tobacco: the definitive link in healthy aging.
    By Daniel John Richard Date

    ReplyDelete
  6. 12. Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers.
    0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers.
    ----
    Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma," [emphasis added].
    0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."
    [Many other studies show similar findings for asbestos workers].

    ReplyDelete
  7. 13. Smokers Paradoxes, the Health Benefits of Smoking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health_benefits_of_smoking

    ReplyDelete
  8. Data from the CDC and the NHTSA has shown that non-smokers do not live longer than smokers.

    The average age of death from all causes was 71.1 years,
    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/98.025.PDF

    The average age of death for smokers is about 72.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf


    Smokers and never smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer at about the same age!!

    http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/472

    From the same study.
    I found this interesting:

    "Adenocarcinomas seem to be more common in never smokers, light smokers, and former smokers, whereas squamous cell or other histologic types are more common in heavy smokers and current smokers.27,33,34

    Furthermore, the prevalence of adenocarcinoma among lung cancer patients increases with years since quitting smoking.35

    Likewise, our data show a higher proportion of adenocarcinoma among never smokers than among former or current smokers (Table 2)."

    Why would a former smoker be more likely to get the 'never smoker type lung cancer' if his former smoking caused his lung cancer?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Smokers have a 50% less risk of Alzheimer's and a 73% less risk for Parkinson's Disease.

    HEART DISEASE

    What about heart disease, then? It's on the cigarette packet in capital letters:
    SMOKING CAUSES HEART DISEASE.

    The most authoritative study on this is certainly the Framingham Heart Study, which is known as the Rolls Royce of studies.

    When information about certain of the other 300 risk factors for heart disease were taken into account, the relationship between smoking and heart disease was lost.



    LUNG CANCER

    Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Belinsky SA, Barr EB, Stoner GD, Lechner JF, Failure of cigarette smoke to induce or promote lung cancer in the A/J mouse, Cancer Lett; 99(2):161-7 1996

    No matter how much tobacco smoke they made poor animals inhale, even in equivalents of a carton or more per day (through surgically implanted breathing tubes), the more they smoked the fewer lung cancers they get. It just doesn't work and it even contradicts their "theory" so they just gave it up.

    With humans, we can't force them to smoke, or even not to smoke, hence the next best thing, closest to hard science, are randomized intervention trials -- you take a group of smokers, assign half of them randomly into a 'quit group' (strongly advised not to smoke), and a 'control group' (left alone, to smoke as they wish), then follow them up for some years or decades, observe the smoking rates (which are normally lower in 'quit group') and check for lung cancers or other diseases.

    That was done, of course, but only a handful of times in the early years of antismoking "science". As with animal experiments, the results of these few randomized intervention trials,whenever they showed anything at all, also went the "wrong way" -- the 'quit group' ends up with more lung cancers than the 'control group' (and generally higher death rates).

    Professor Burch, in a letter to the British Medical Journal (March 1985) pointed out that in these two studies:

    In the low smoking intervention groups 56 cases of lung cancer were recorded in a total starting population of 7,142 men (0.78%); the corresponding number for the more heavily smoking normal care groups being 53 in 7,169 (0.74%).

    Findings for cancer other than those of the lung were even more surprising.

    Some 88 cases (1.23%) were recorded in the low smoking intervention groups, but only 60 cases (0.84%) in the normal care groups. Thus in the category 'all cancers' there were 144 cases (2.02%) in the intervention groups but 113 cases (1.58%) in the more heavily smoking normal care groups.

    Reduced levels of smoking were associated with increases in cancer incidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THE TRUTH ABOUT SMOKING CAUSED DISEASES:

    TRENDS AND INCIDENCE RATES
    If smoking was bad for us and caused heart disease and cancers, as the anti-smokers claim,; then, the fact that smoking rates have decreased by 50% over the last 40 years should bring about an equal decrease in heart disease and cancer incidence rates.

    This decrease has not happened!!
    http://www.nj.gov/health/ces/reports.shtml

    Data,Statistics and Reports:

    Trends in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in New Jersey, 1979-2002 [pdf 312k] (11/28/05)
    NOTE: U.S. rates are also shown.

    Tables 5+6,pages 46 and 47

    Total cancer incidence rate- U.S.(per 100,000)
    1979 male + female total = 861.5
    2001 male + female total = 963.4
    2004 male + female total = 970.9


    www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf[/URL]
    Health,United States,2006
    Page 229
    Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950–2004
    [Data are based on death certificates]
    All persons: Deaths per 100,000 resident population
    All ages, age-adjusted
    1970.........2004

    37.1.........53.2

    This is a 43% increase in lung cancer deaths!!

    Smoking can not be the major cause of lung cancer!!

    HEART DISEASE
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/cancer...disease-and-smoking/

    The AHA doesn’t particularly want us to know about the incidence of heart disease; they just want us to know that deaths from it are declining. To find the incidence you have to go to a table called Hospital Discharges with Cardiovascular Disease as the First Listed Diagnosis.

    Hospital Discharges With Cardiovascular Disease as the First Listed Diagnosis
    United States: 1979-2003

    1969 = about 3,200,000
    2003 = 6,434,000

    As you can see the rate of these discharges is increasing. When you correct for the increase in population over the years, the line doesn’t increase as rapidly, but still increases slightly. What does this mean? It means that despite a 50% decrease in smoking rates, that the number of people developing heart disease hasn’t dropped at all. If anything it has increased.
    Smoking can not be the major cause of Heart Disease!!!
    This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, Sat February 23 2008 07:31 AMSat February 23 2008 07:31 AM

    ReplyDelete
  11. EMPHYSEMA and BRONCHITIS (COPD)
    This is from the "American Lung Association(ALA)", we know that they would not lie as they are a public health organization and only interested in our welfare.

    TRENDS IN CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY;

    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION;
    EPIDEMIOLOGY & STATISTICS UNIT;
    RESEARCH AND PROGRAM SERVICES
    MAY 2005

    COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002
    Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons
    1979..... 2002
    24.2.......42.0

    NOTE: Smoking has gone DOWN by almost 50% over the last 40 years, over the last 20 plus years the COPD death rate has GONE UP BY 74%.

    Yet, the ALA and other health advocates say that smoking causes Emphysema!!!!

    Clearly, smoking does not cause Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis.

    Smoking and the Asthma Epidemic:

    The most recent study to exonerate smoking and tobacco smoke as a cause of asthma was published in the British Medical Journal July 8, 2000.

    In this 20-year, inter generational study, researchers found that the rate of asthma had doubled between l976 and l996, even as the smoking rate dropped by half during that same period. Asthma and hay fever increased for both smokers and non-smokers, but the increase was higher for non-smokers. The steep rise in asthma was dramatically underscored by the fact that prescriptions for steroid inhalants for treatment of the disease rose more than six-fold between l980 and l990 alone.

    This pattern of precipitous increases in asthma coupled with significantly diminishing smoking rates is not unique to the population described by the Scottish researchers in their BMJ article.

    In the United States, too, the incidence of adult and childhood asthma has climbed to an unprecedented high during the past twenty years, while smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] have decreased significantly during the same period.

    "...Between 1980 and l995, the number of people reporting asthma in the U.S. more than doubled (from 6.7 million to 13.7 million), a 75% increase in the rate per 100,000 population.
    The Centers for Disease Control estimates the l998 rate at 17.3 million, a 150% increase since 1980.

    "...Between l980 and l995, the adult smoking rate decreased from 33.2 to 24.7, a drop of 25%. In the late l990s the overall smoking rate has remained steady at between 24 and 25 percent of the adult population, far less than its peak of 42.6% in l966. The inverse relationship between asthma rates and smoking and between asthma rates and exposure to ETS can be seen quite clearly.

    Smoking and SHS cannot be causing Asthma!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. the Japanese and Isreali people have very high smoking rates and much lower lung cancer death rates than the US, economic and environmental factors have a much greater impact on LC incidence and death rates than does smoking.

    ..............................

    In case your are curious.
    lung cancer death rate(lcdr)
    http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm
    Smokers Prevalence(%)- LCDR/100,000 smokers
    MALE
    Japan--- 59.0 ('94)-- --- 81.2
    Israel---- 45.0 ('90)----- 84.7
    USA ----- 28.1 ('91)---- 305.7
    FEMALE
    Israel---- 30.0 ('90)------- 40.3
    Spain---- 25.0 ('93)------- 21.6
    USA------ 23.5 ('91)------ 157.0

    ReplyDelete
  13. The real question is just how much does smoking contribute to Lung Cancer and Lung Cancer Deaths?

    The answer= NOT MUCH!!!

    This information is not for the antis, they believe what they want to believe and no amount of 'Truth' will influence them.

    This is for the smokers and will help to free them from the decades of propaganda and brain-washing that they have received.
    Gary K.

    This is 'THE TRUTH-5'.

    We will use the map above and female smoking rates from here.
    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=81&cat=2

    In 'The Truth-4', we saw that American Indians/Alaskan Natives had a 35% higher smoking rate and a 28% lower LC Death rate than white smokers.

    These a just a few of the dose-response comparisons that can be done.

    Using the map and female smoking rates,we find that New York has a lower smoking rate than Penn.(18.1%-22.3%) and about a 200% higher LC death rate!!

    The Penn. smoking rate is about 100% higher than Calif's(22.3%-11.3%) and Calif has LC death rate that is about 200% higher!!

    Iowa and Neb both have a smoking rate slightly higher than does Fla(19.1%-18.8%) and Fla has a LC death rate about 100% higher!!

    Utah and Calif have about the same smoking rate(9.3%-11.3%) and Calif has a LC death rate that is about 300% higher!!

    Do the smokers living on the coast of No.and So. Carolina smoke more toxic cigarettes??
    lung cancer death rate(lcdr)

    http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm
    Smokers Prevalence(%)- LCDR/100,000 smokers
    MALE
    Japan--- 59.0 ('94)-- --- 81.2
    Israel---- 45.0 ('90)----- 84.7
    USA ----- 28.1 ('91)---- 305.7
    FEMALE
    Israel---- 30.0 ('90)------- 40.3
    Spain---- 25.0 ('93)------- 21.6
    USA------ 23.5 ('91)------ 157.0

    For females we see that both Spain and Israel have slightly higher smoking rates and the USA's LC death rate is about 700% and 300% higher!!
    This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30, Tue February 26 2008 11:34 AMTue February 26 2008 11:34 AM

    ReplyDelete
  14. NICOTINE and SMOKING BENEFITS
    By Wanda Hamilton
    Researchers have long been aware that fewer smokers get Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases than non-smokers. Up to April l992, of the 17 studies on Alzheimer's and smoking which had been published in peer-reviewed journals, 13 reported a reduced risk for smokers and only four found no difference between smokers and non-smokers. Similar findings have been published on the effect of smoking and Parkinson's disease.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Evidence that smoking is protective against thyroid cancer

    Prepublished from the American Journal of Epidemiology (Sep 2007). From the abstract of pubmed's Alcohol Drinking, Tobacco Smoking, and Anthropometric Characteristics as Risk Factors for Thyroid Cancer: A Countrywide Case-Control Study in New Caledonia. (Unité 754, INSERM, Villejuif, France) by Guignard R, Truong T, Rougier Y, Baron-Dubourdieu D, Guénel P., quote (emphasis added):

    Exceptionally high incidence rates of thyroid cancer are observed in New Caledonia, particularly in Melanesian women. To investigate further the etiology of thyroid cancer and to clarify the reasons of this elevated incidence, the authors conducted a countrywide population-based case-control study in this multiethnic population. The study included 332 cases with histologically verified papillary or follicular carcinoma (293 women and 39 men) diagnosed in 1993-1999 and 412 population controls (354 women and 58 men) frequency matched by gender and 5-year age group. Thyroid cancer was negatively associated with tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking, but no inverse dose-response relation was observed. Height was positively associated with thyroid cancer, particularly in men. Strong positive associations with weight and body mass index were observed in Melanesian women aged 50 years or more, with an odds ratio of 5.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.5, 20.3) for a body mass index of 35 kg/m(2) or greater compared with normal-weight women, and there was a clear dose-response trend. This study clarifies the role of overweight for thyroid cancer in postmenopausal women. Because of the high prevalence of obesity among Melanesian women of New Caledonia, this finding may explain in part the exceptionally elevated incidence of thyroid cancer in this group.

    ReplyDelete
  16. SCIENCE NEWS
    March 20, 2007
    Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk

    By Megan Rauscher

    NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson's disease. Specifically, the new research shows a temporal relationship between smoking and reduced risk of Parkinson's disease. That is, the protective effect wanes after smokers quit.

    "It is not our intent to promote smoking as a protective measure against Parkinson's disease," Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health emphasized in comments to Reuters Health. "Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences. Rather, we did this study to try to encourage other scientists...to consider the possibility that neuroprotective chemicals may be present in tobacco leaves."

    As reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, Thacker and colleagues analyzed data, including detailed lifetime smoking histories, from 79,977 women and 63,348 men participating in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. During about 9 years of follow-up, 413 subjects developed definite or probable Parkinson's disease.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Carbon Monoxide Paradox
    By Neil Sherman
    HealthScout Reporter

    WEDNESDAY, May 9 (HealthScout) -- A killer gas may actually be a lifesaver, surprising research in mice reveals.

    Researchers discovered that very low levels of carbon monoxide helped mice whose lungs had been starved of blood and oxygen to stave off death. The startling discovery could possibly lead to the use of carbon monoxide -- at the right concentrations -- to help stroke and heart attack victims.

    "When you give very low levels of carbon monoxide, it actually causes the blood vessels to change some of their properties so that clots dissolve more readily," says lead author Dr. David Pinsky, an associate professor of medicine at Columbia University.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cigarettes May Have an Up Side
    By Paul Recer
    AP Science Writer
    Tuesday, May 19, 1998; 4:03 p.m. EDT

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cigarettes may actually lower the risk of breast cancer among women with a gene mutation linked to high rates of the disease, a study indicates. But the researchers say other health risks of smoking far outweigh the possible benefits.
    ``Smoking may reduce breast cancer risk for these women, but cigarettes sharply increase the incidence of other cancers,'' said Jean-Sebastien Brunet, lead author of a study being published Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

    ``This study is interesting scientifically, but it should not encourage anyone to smoke,'' said Brunet, a researcher at the Women's College Hospital of the University of Toronto in Canada.

    The study examined the breast cancer history of 372 women who all had mutations of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. By some estimates, about 80 percent of such women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime.

    Half of the women in the study were smokers and half were nonsmokers.
    Brunet said that the incidence of breast cancer was 54 percent lower among heavy smokers than among nonsmokers. The effect, he said, was ``dose related''; that is, the more a woman with a BRCA gene mutation smoked, the less likelihood of her developing breast cancer.
    ``If a woman smoked up to four pack years, the reduction was 35 percent,'' he said. ``For a four or more pack years, the reduction was 54 percent.''

    A pack year is equal to smoking one 20-cigarette pack a day for a year. Four pack years would be four packs a day for a year or one pack a day for four years.
    The study involved only women with the BRCA gene mutation. This mutation occurs, on average, in only one of every 250 women. Among some ethnic groups, the rate can be as high as one in 50. Between 5 percent and 10 percent of all women with breast cancer have a BRCA mutation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Research Indicating That Nicotine Holds Potential for Non-Surgical Heart By-Pass Procedures Honored by the American College of Cardiology

    Stanford University Discovery Licensed by Endovasc

    MONTGOMERY, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 17, 2000-- Dr. Christopher Heeschen of Stanford University was honored this week by the American College of Cardiology for his research on the effect of nicotine on angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth). His work took third place in the 2,000 entry Young Investigators Competition in the category of Physiology, Pharmacology and Pathology.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even smoking is clearly trumped by another factor or combination of factors, judging by the unusually low incidence of heart attacks in France, Japan and on Kitava.

    The Kitavans: Wisdom from the Pacific Islands

    There are very few cultures left on this planet that have not been affected by modern food habits. There are even fewer that have been studied thoroughly. The island of Kitava in Papua New Guinea is host to one such culture, and its inhabitants have many profound things to teach us about diet and health.

    The Kitava study, a series of papers produced primarily by Dr. Staffan Lindeberg and his collaborators, offers a glimpse into the nutrition and health of an ancient society, using modern scientific methods. This study is one of the most complete and useful characterizations of the diet and health of a non-industrial society I have come across. It's also the study that created, and ultimately resolved, my cognitive dissonance over the health effects of carbohydrate.

    From the photos I've seen, the Kitavans are beautiful people. They have the broad, attractive faces, smooth skin and excellent teeth typical of healthy non-industrial peoples.

    Like the Kuna, Kitavans straddle the line between agricultural and hunter-gatherer lifestyles. They eat a diet primarily composed of tubers (yam, sweet potato, taro and cassava), fruit, vegetables, coconut and fish, in order of calories. This is typical of traditional Pacific island cultures, although the relative amounts differ.

    Grains, refined sugar, vegetable oils and other processed foods are virtually nonexistent on Kitava. They get an estimated 69% of their calories from carbohydrate, 21% from fat, 17% from saturated fat and 10% from protein. Most of their fat intake is saturated because it comes from coconuts. They have an omega-6 : omega-3 ratio of approximately 1:2. Average caloric intake is 2,200 calories per day (9,200 kJ). By Western standards, their diet is high in carbohydrate, high in saturated fat, low in total fat, a bit low in protein and high in calories.

    Now for a few relevant facts before we really start diving in:
    • Kitavans are not particularly active. They have an activity level comparable to a moderately active Swede, the population to which Dr. Lindeberg draws frequent comparisons.
    • They have abundant food, and shortage is practically unknown.
    • Their good health is probably not related to genetics, since genetically similar groups in the same region are exquisitely sensitive to the ravages of industrial food. Furthermore, the only Kitavan who moved away from the island to live a modern life is also the only fat Kitavan.
    • Their life expectancy at birth is estimated at 45 years (includes infant mortality), and life expectancy at age 50 is an additional 25 years. This is remarkable for a culture with limited access to modern medicine.
    • Over 75% of Kitavans smoke cigarettes. Even the most isolated societies have their modern vices.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DID YOU KNOW...
    ...that an Australian study sampling, among other things, individuals over 45 years of age, found that 11.3% of smokers suffered from hypertension, versus 27.0% ex-smokers and 29.0% never-smokers?
    ________________________
    DATA FROM:
    Australian Bureau of Statistics January 1994 report entitled "1980-90 National Health Survey: Lifestyle and Health Australia".

    ReplyDelete
  22. DID YOU KNOW...
    ...that an Australian study sampling, among other things, individuals over 45 years of age, found that 6.0% of smokers suffered from heart disease, versus 6.7% never-smokers and 11.4% ex-smokers?
    ________________________
    DATA FROM:
    Australian Bureau of Statistics January 1994 report entitled "1980-90 National Health Survey: Lifestyle and Health Australia".

    ReplyDelete
  23. DID YOU KNOW...
    ...that in an Australian study, 91.8% of those who never smoked reported a long term illenss, while those who smoked reported 89.0%?
    When age was taken into consideration, more people who had never smoked than those who did smoke reported one or more long-term illnesses.
    When the number of years during which a person had been a smoker were taken into account, it was the ex-smokers who fared worse when it came to long term illnesses.
    ________________________
    DATA FROM:
    Australian Bureau of Statistics January 1994 report entitled "1980-90 National Health Survey: Lifestyle and Health Australia".

    ReplyDelete
  24. DID YOU KNOW...
    ...that smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers?
    Data from: 0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A.
    "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers".

    DID YOU KNOW...
    ... that Hypertension and postpartum hemorrhage are lower in smokers?
    Data from:
    0045. University of Tasmania (Australia). Correy, J.; Newman, N. Curran, J. "An Assessment of Smoking in Pregnancy."

    ReplyDelete
  25. DID YOU KNOW...
    ... that nonsmokers and especially ex-smokers of cigarettes have greater risk of UC [ulcerative colitis]?

    Data from:
    4134. Lorusso, D.; Leo, S.; Miscianga, G.; Guerra, V. "Cigarette smoking and ulcerative colitis. A case control Study." Hepato-Gastroenterology 36(4): 202-4, Aug. 1989.

    ReplyDelete
  26. DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that there is a low prevalence of smoking in ulcerative colitis? And that the disease often starts or relapses after stopping smoking?

    Data from:
    4101. Prytz, H.; Benoni, C.; Tagesson, C. "Does smoking tighten the gut?" In Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 24(9):1084-8, Nov. 1989.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that smoking protects against Parkinson's disease?
    Data from many studies. Among them:

    1102. Carr, L.A.; Rowell, P.P. "Attenuation of 1methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydrophyridine- induced neurotoxicity by tobacco smoke." Published in Neuro-pharmacology 29(3):311-4, Mar 1990.

    1190. Janson, A.M.; Fuxe, K.; Agnati, L.F. Jansson, A. et al. "Protective effects of chronic nicotine treatment on lesioned nigrostriatal dopamine neurons in the male rat." Pub. in Progress in Brain Research 79:257-65, 1989.

    4014. Decina, P.; Caracci, G.; Sandik, R.; Berman, W. et al. "Cigarette smoking and neuroleptic-induced parkinsonism." In Biological Psychiatry 28(6):502-8, Sept. 15, 1990

    ReplyDelete
  28. DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from nonsmokers?

    Data from:
    0759. University of Colorado. Refine, J.E.; Berger, E.M.; Beehler, C.J. et al. "Role of RBC Antioxidants in Cigarette Smoke Related Diseases." Jan 1980 - continuing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that Hypertension (high blood pressure) and postpartum hemorrhage are lower in smokers?

    Data from:
    0045. University of Tasmania (Australia). Correy, J.; Newman, N. Curran, J. "An Assessment of Smoking in Pregnancy."

    ReplyDelete
  30. DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that Hypertension (high blood pressure) is less common among smokers?

    Data from:
    0146. Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases. Chen, H.Z.; Pan, X.W.; Guo, G. et al. "Relation Between Cigarette Smoking and Epidemiology of Hypertension.

    ReplyDelete
  31. DID YOU KNOW...
    ... that smokers have lower incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis than nonsmokers?

    Data from:
    Guy's Hospital Medical School (England). Jones, R.M. "Influence of Smoking on Peri-Operative Morbidity."

    DID YOU KNOW...
    ... that smokers have less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers?

    Data from:
    Veterans Administration, Outpatient Clinic (Boston). Chauncey. H.H,; Kapur, K.K.; Feldmar, R S. "The Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Study of Oral Health: in Healthy Veterans (Dental Longitudinal Study)

    DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    ... that Smokers in general are thinner than nonsmokers, even when they ingest more calories?

    Data from:
    Numerous studies, but only two are listed below:
    0885. Kentucky State University. Lee. C.J.: Panemangalore. M. "Obesity Among Selected Elderly Females In Central Kentucky." FUNDING: USDA 0942. University of Louisville. Belknap Campus School of Medicine. Satmford, B.A.; Matter, S.;
    Fell, R.D., et al. "Cigarette Smoking, Exercise and High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol" FUNDING: American Heart Association.

    DID YOU KNOW...
    ... that smoking improves motor performance?

    Data from:
    0530. London University, Institute of Psychiatry. O'Connor, K.P "Individual Differences in Psychophysiology of Smoking and Smoking Behaviour "

    DID YOU KNOW THAT...
    • Smoking improves human information processing?
    • Higher nicotine cigarettes produce greater improvements [in information processing] than low-nicotine cigarettes?
    • Nicotine can reverse the detrimental effects of scopolamine on performance?
    • Smoking effects are accompanied by increases in EEG arousal and decreases in the latency of the late positive component of the evoked potential?
    Data from:
    0574. University of Reading, Department of Psychology (England). Warburton., D.M.; Wesnes, K. "The Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Human Information Processing and the role of Nicotine in These Effects"

    The WHO, in order to "prove" the dangers of ETS, financed the second largest study in the world on secondhand smoke.
    But the study "backfired" and showed not only that there was no statistical risk of disease on passive smoking, but even a protective effect for those who are exposed to it.
    Not surprisingly, it is said that the WHO tried to hide the study from the media.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Allergy season: Cigarettes to the rescue?

    http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/allergy-season-cigarettes-rescue-21093.html

    A new study shows that cigarette smoke can prevent allergies by decreasing the reaction of immune cells to allergens.

    Smoking cigarettes has a surprising benefit: cigarettes can protect smokers from certain types of allergies. Now, a study recommended by Neil Thomson, a member of Faculty of 1000 Biology and leading expert in the field of respiratory medicine, demonstrates that cigarette smoke decreases the allergic response by inhibiting the activity of mast cells, the major players in the immune system's response to allergens.

    Researchers at Utrecht University in the Netherlands found that treatment of mast cells with a cigarette smoke-infused solution prevented the release of inflammation-inducing proteins in response to allergens, without affecting other mast cell immune functions.

    The mast cells used in the study were derived from mice, but it is likely that the same anti-allergy effect will hold true in humans. While taking up smoking to cure allergies is unwise, Thomson concludes that the findings presented in this study are "consistent with a dampening of allergic responses in smokers

    ReplyDelete
  33. There could be beneficial effects of smoking when it comes to Dermatitis Herpetiformis, DH... immunosuppressive effects of smoking play a role in this autoimmune disease
    Smith JB, Fenske NA. Cutaneous manifestations and consequences of smoking. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;34:717-732[Medline].



    One study found decreased serum IgA in smokers which may also play a role.
    Ferson M, Edwards A, Lind A, et al. Low natural killer-cell activity and immunoglobulin levels associated with smoking in human subjects. Int J Cancer 1979;23:603-609[Medline].

    ReplyDelete
  34. Much of "addiction" propaganda is aimed at uneducated. While it is true that smoking causes permanent changes in brain (and in other tissues), so does remembering you birthday or your last name or your native tongue. Your entire life is an irreversible unfolding at biochemical, psychological,... economic, social levels.

    The relevant question is not whether changes are permanent (they mostly are) but whether the changes in your biochemical network induced by tobacco smoking are good or bad for you. All the hard science from antismoking research itself, indicates that tobacco smoking has protective, invigorating and rejuvenating effects on the nervous systems, central and peripheral. In particular regarding the "addiction" causing changes above, tobacco smoking does increase the numbers of nicotinic receptors (which are one of the two main types of cellular receptors; these receptors exist in everyone, unrelated to smoking despite historically accidental suggestive name).

    These nicotinc receptors are vital for functioning of not just brain but of perhipheral nervous system and ultimately of every cell and organ in your body. Their numbers and functionality decline with age, most dramatically in people with dementias (such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's). As with MAO levels discussed in the first post (which increase with age, like a gunk in a high precision machinery), the number of well functioning nicotinic receptors is another clock defining your real biological age -- the more well functioning nicotinic receptors you have, the younger and more vital you are. The permanent increase in number of these receptors induced (in the long run, not instantly) by tobacco smoke is most certainly good for you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Antis claim that there are "400,000 preventable deaths" caused by smoking.

    If every smoker quit smoking today, that number of deaths would INCREASE!!

    Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. www.lungcanceralliance.or...tsheet_2008.pdf

    "In fact, non-smokers(never-smokers..GK) now account for nearly 20 percent of all new lung cancer cases and over 50% of new lung cancer patients are former smokers, many of whom quit decades ago, says the Alliance for Lung Cancer (Alcase), a Vancouver, Wash.-based non-profit group.

    Current smokers,45 million, account for 30% of the new lung cancer deaths(LCD's) or about 48,000 LCD's per year.

    Ex-smokers,45 million, account for 50% of the yearly LCD's or 80,000 per year.

    If the 45 million current smokers became ex-smokers, there would be 32,000 MORE LCD's per year.

    Smokers will have a 67% GREATER chance of suffering a LCD if they quit.
    If every smoker quit smoking today,there would be an INCREASE in LCD's and there would be NO decrease in cardiovascular disease deaths!!

    Smokers are NOT at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease!!!!

    Cardiovascular disease events include heart attack, angina, coronary heart disease, stroke, and claudicate (peripheral arterial disease).

    The Framingham Heart Study is about real people who have been monitored for decades.

    The two reports below are the results of 40 and about 60 years of data about actual people and their health.

    The CDC and it's 400,000 deaths is NOT about real people, that number and it's risk factors, is a computer generated GUESS!!


    http://www.forces.org/writers/hatton/files/murder.htm

    ReplyDelete
  36. --Smokers and nonsmokers had similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.

    The study appears in the Feb. 14,2006 issue of the American Heart Association journal 'Circulation'.

    (SOURCES: Lloyd-Jones, D.M. "Circulation", Feb. 14, 2006, vol. 113: online. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, department of preventive medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. Jorge Plutzky, MD, director, vascular disease prevention program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.)
    Here is a better link for the LCA.

    http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/documents/lungcancer_factsheet_2008.pdf

    The LCA shows never-smokers as having 15% of the LCD's; but, CDC data here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm

    Table
    Shows that there are about 156,899 total LCD's.
    Shows that there are about 125,522 LCD's attributed to smoking(current+ex).

    That is 80% of the LCD's are smoking(current+ex) attributed and 20% attributed to never-smokers.

    I have been somewhat loose with my %'s; but,as the antis say "it's for a noble cause"!!!

    Note the cardiovascular diseases(CVD) deaths portion of the table.

    CDC show about 852,300 total CVD deaths.
    CDC data here shows that there are about 128,500 CVD deaths attributed to smoking.

    That 128,500 is 15% of the total CVD deaths.

    Sooo,we have 20% of the adult population(current smokers), causing ONLY 15% of the total CVD deaths.

    Thus;as shown by BOTH the Framingham Study data and the CDC data, smokers DO NOT have an increased risk of CVD deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  37. CDC data from the table here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/ mm5745a3.htm

    shows that there are an estimated 392,684 smokers deaths from the 19 diseases that are associated with smoking.

    However;since non-smokers also die from these diseases,these diseases can not be said to be 'caused' only by smoking.

    The table shows that there are a total of 1,293,886 deaths from these diseases.

    Smokers are 27%(cigarette 20%,cigar 6%,pipe 1%) of the population included in this data and smokers would be expected to have 27% of those deaths even if they did not smoke.

    27% of 1,293,886 is 349,349 smokers deaths occurring even if they did not smoke.

    349,349 is 89% of 392,684!

    Soooo,in the U.S., 89% of the 'so-called smoking caused deaths' would still have occurred if smokers did not smoke!!!

    As compared to most countries world-wide, the U.S. hhas a rather low adult smoking rate.

    World-wide, well OVER 90% of those 'smoking caused' deaths would still have occurred even if smokers did not smoke!!
    Pro-ban anti-smoker statistics are very strange!!

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
    The link above has the CDC saying it found NO SAF's/SAM's(deaths) below the age of 35.

    Soooo;if a smoker dies at the age of 34 from lung cancer,it is NOT smoking related.

    ReplyDelete
  38. There is still no scientific proof whatsoever that smoking causes cancer. To hide this reality, epidemiology has been elevated to the rank of science in the public perception by dishonest researchers and health authorities backed by media.

    One particular form of lung cancer stands out. Adenocarcinoma makes up a larger proportion of cancers among never smokers and former smokers than current smokers. It might be fair to establish that adenocarcinoma seems to be a 'non smokers' cancer. Perhaps the smokers are infested by this form of lung cancer, by socializing too much with never smokers. Passive never smoking. Let's ban never smokers from the workplaces of smokers, to protect the smokers from the lung cancers of never smokers.....

    ReplyDelete
  39. You are welcome to bring in a study demonstrating that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer (e.g. an animal experiment or a randomized intervention trial in humans). Mere statistical correlation between A (smoking) and B (lung cancer) does not prove hypothesis A causes B, since such correlation is also perfectly consistent with a hypothesis that there is some other factor C which causes both, A and B.

    Since tobacco smoke produces numerous beneficial biochemical and physiological effects in smokers (e.g. upregulation/rejuvenation of glutathione, neutrophiles, vascular growth factor, pregnenolone, IGF1, DHEA, testosterone, # of nicotinic ACh receptors, acetylcholine, dopamine, MAOI B,... ), there are plenty of therapeutic and protective effects against variety of inflammatory and toxic exposures C (where tobacco smoking provides immediate relief e.g. see a recent German study where C=aluminum dusts, and benefit of upregulated glutathione in smokers) but some of which can also be carcinogenic. In that case, correlation of A and B would be analogous to a correlation between the use of sunglasses and sunburns -- people who used sunglasses more hours last year are also more likely to have had more sunburns last year than the non users. Measuring the use of sunglasses is then simply a proxy for measuring person's sun exposure, the actual cause of sunburns.

    Since the statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer was known since 1950s, the brute fact that after half a century and the vast amounts of money and resources spent into attempts to demonstrate the causal hypothesis, there is still no such demonstration (many such attempts backfired, proving precisely the oppposite, the protective role of smoking), reinforces the alternative hypothesis into a virtual certainty -- tobacco smoking does not cause lung cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nicotine Reduces the Incidence of Type I Diabetes in Mice
    J. G. Mabley, P. Pacher, G. J. Southan, A. L. Salzman and C. Szabó
    J. Pharmacology and Exp. Therapeutics, Vol. 300, Issue 3, 876-881, March 2002

    Nicotine has been previously shown to have immunosuppressive actions. Type I diabetes is an autoimmune disease resulting from the specific destruction of the insulin-producing pancreatic beta -cells. Thus, we hypothesized that nicotine may exert protective effects against type I diabetes. The multiple low-dose streptozotocin (MLDS)-induced model and spontaneous nonobese diabetic (NOD) mouse model of type I diabetes were used to assess whether nicotine could prevent this autoimmune disease. Blood glucose levels, diabetes incidence, pancreas insulin content, and cytokine levels were measured in both models of diabetes, both to asses the level of protection exerted by nicotine and to further investigate its mechanism of action. Nicotine treatment reduced the hyperglycemia and incidence of disease in both the MLDS and NOD mouse models of diabetes. Nicotine also protected against the diabetes-induced decrease in pancreatic insulin content observed in both animal models. The pancreatic levels of the Th1 cytokines interleukin (IL)-12, IL-1, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha , and interferon (IFN)-gamma were increased in both MLDS-induced and spontaneous NOD diabetes, an effect prevented by nicotine treatment. Nicotine treatment increased the pancreatic levels of the Th2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-10. Nicotine treatment reduces the incidence of type I diabetes in two animal models by changing the profile of pancreatic cytokine expression from Th1 to Th2.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Additionally it's a historical fact that the California Desert Indians smoked tobacco to cure colds.
    http://www.tobacco.o...antobcalif.html

    (Note the above website was developed to research and support lawsuits against tobacco.)

    In the final analysis, the facts do not add up about the risks of tobacco.

    ReplyDelete
  42. * Johnstone & Hill "Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
    The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its
    benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was
    compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was
    never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not
    smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended
    smoking to relieve asthma.
    http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
    Those protective effects of tobacco smoke would surprise even less the
    British medical team of Dr. C. Y. Caldwell, who studied the Semai people
    of Maylasia in 1970s. The Semai children are fairly unique in our times
    since they enjoy the benefits of not merely the occasional whiff of
    secondary smoke but of the real thing -- the Semai children start
    smoking at age two (it is a way of weaning them from nursing).
    Now we are talking protection. Short of ripping them away from their
    mother's breast to make them smoke before the age of two, you can't get
    more direct and clear experiment than that. I would imagine animal
    rights groups here would scream a bloody murder, were scientists to try
    such experiment even on dogs, let alone primates or humans. Yet here,
    the parents themselves teach, perhaps even compel, their own toddlers to
    smoke before they can talk, the way they and their ancestors were taught
    as far back as anyone can remember.
    Dr. Caldwell and his team thoroughly examined (which included full chest
    x-rays) 12000 Semai and, as their paper (Feb 26, 1977 BMJ) reported,
    they found _not a single_ lung cancer. For more on this, see Dr.
    Whitby's book (2nd edition, pages 26, 103) which brought this amazing
    result, completely ignored by the mass media, to public attention:
    * Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a74...
    > Smoking and secondhand smoke are associated with my diseases such as
    > emphysema which were not addressed in the study you cited.
    Sorry, I didn't know "your diseases" include emphysema. I can't even
    imagine how hard it must be for you to participate here, struggling for
    oxygen every moment. If only you smoked, your lungs might have still
    been good and healthy.
    Namely, as indicated in our previous thread on protective effects of
    tobacco smoke against lung damage:
    == Smoking protective against lung damage
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/f4c2f720...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here is one scientific paper, very heavily cited (263 times), focusing specifically on the glutathione levels and smoking:
    ------
    "Normal alveolar epithelial lining fluid contains high levels of glutathione"
    A. M. Cantin, S. L. North, R. C. Hubbard and R. G. Crystal
    Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 63, Issue 1 152-157, Copyright c 1987 by American Physiological Society

    ABSTRACT

    The epithelial cells on the alveolar surface of the human lower respiratory tract are vulnerable to toxic oxidants derived from inhaled pollutants or inflammatory cells. Although these lung cells have intracellular antioxidants, these defenses may be insufficient to protect the epithelial surface against oxidants present at the alveolar surface. This study demonstrates that the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) of the lower respiratory tract contains large amounts of the sulfhydryl-containing antioxidant glutathione (GSH). The total glutathione (the reduced form GSH and the disulfide GSSG) concentration of normal ELF was 140-fold higher than that in plasma of the same individuals, and 96% of the glutathione in ELF was in the reduced form. Compared with nonsmokers, cigarette smokers had 80% higher levels of ELF total glutathione, 98% of which was in the reduced form. Studies of cultured lung epithelial cells and fibroblasts demonstrated that these concentrations of reduced glutathione were sufficient to protect these cells against the burden of H2O2 in the range released by alveolar macrophages removed from the lower respiratory tract of nonsmokers and smokers, respectively, suggesting that the glutathione present in the alveolar ELF of normal individuals likely contributes to the protective screen against oxidants in the extracellular milieu of the lower respiratory tract.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here is an interesting official confirmation I found abot smoking rodents. The source is the official repository of tobacco documents (obtained during MSA negotiations). On page 97 of the report there is the following study citation & conclusion excerpt:

    "Inhalation Bioassy of Cigarette Smoke in Rats"
    A. P. Wehrner, et al. (Battele Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland WA)
    Journal of Toxiology & Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 61: pp 1-17 (1981)

    The results show that the highest number of tumors occured in the untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of tumors occurred in rats subject to sham smoking, i.e. rats which were placed in the smoking machine without smoke exposure, and the lowest number of tumors occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the latter, the largest number of tumors occurreed in rats exposed to smoke from cigarettes having the lowest level of nicotine.


    So, among the lab rats, the "full flavor" smokers had the fewest tumors, the "light cigrattes" smokers had more, the sham-smokers even more, and non-smokers had the most. The entire document (pdf file) is a gold mine with many hudreds of fascinating and little publicised reasearch "anomalies" (i.e. the studies in which the data went the "wrong" way) regarding the relation of cancers to smoking. Of course, there is no real anomaly (the reality is surely not perplexed by itself), provided one views the data from the perspective of tobacco smoking being protective against (instead of "the cause of") the diseases studied. The data is anomalous only from the perspectiva in which tobacco smoke is assumed to be the cause of those diseases.

    Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and schizophrenia risks are cut in half by smoking (at least) and for the patients, taking up smoking greatly alleviates the symptoms and reduces further damage of these diseases. Those who quit smoking, increase their risk of getting these diseases by 50% for each 10 years of non-smoking. For the early onset Alzheimer's (40s and 50s), smoking cuts the risk tenfold.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I might point out that a lower adult smoking rate(50%) and a greatly reduced SHS exposure rate(87%) over the last 40 years have led to a 121% increase in lung cancer deaths, a 20% increase in COPD(emphysema) deaths since 1990, and since 1980 a 50% increase in asthma deaths.

    Whatever is causing more and more of our children and adults to contract and die from asthma, lung cancer, and COPD -it's not tobacco smoke and smoking bans will do nothing to stop the slaughter.
    Gary K.

    Adult Smoking rate in the early 60's was about 44%,by 1990 that rate had fallen to 23%,a 48% decrease.We can expect that SHS exposure levels were down by the same 48%; thus, SHS exposure levels in 1990 were only 52% of what it was in the early 60's.

    2006 Sur.Gen's Report quotes the CDC thusly:

    (note:cotinine is used to measure SHS exposure-GK)
    The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke(SG's 2006 Report)
    Table 10.1, page 575
    2005
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which documents that cotinine levels decreased 68 percent for children, 69 percent for adolescents, and 75 percent for adults from the early 1990s to 2002.

    75% of 52 is 39, 52 minus 39 = 13.

    Thus SHS exposure levels are only 13% of what they were in the 60's, this is an 87% decrease!!

    Health,United States,2006
    Page 229
    Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950-2004
    Lung Cancer deaths (age adjusted) were:
    1960
    24.1 per 100,000
    2004
    53.2 per 100,000
    This is a 121% increase.

    http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8⊂=42

    The prevalence of asthma has been increasing since the early 1980s across all age, sex and racial groups.

    Mortality:
    Since 1980 asthma death rates overall have increased more than 50% among all genders, age groups and ethnic groups.

    COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002
    Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons

    1990 = 35.1

    2002 = 42.0
    This is a 20% increase.

    Source: Age Standardization of Death Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47 No. 3.
    Additional Calculations Performed by the American Lung Association, Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. "

    ReplyDelete
  46. BMJ: Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 56, 468-472, 1999
    Lack of combined effects of exposure and smoking on respiratory health in aluminium potroom workers

    K Radon, D Nowak and D Szadkowski
    Ordinariat fur Arbeitsmedizin der Universitat und Zentralinstitut fur
    Arbeitsmedizin, Hamburg, Germany.

    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the combined influence on respiratory health
    of smoking and exposure in an aluminium potroom. METHODS: In a cross
    sectional study of 75 potroom workers (23 never smokers, 38 current
    smokers, 14 ex-smokers) and 56 controls in the same plant (watchmen,
    craftsmen, office workers, laboratory employees; 18 non-smokers, 21
    current smokers, 17 ex-smokers), prevalences of respiratory symptoms and
    spirometric indices were compared.

    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).

    CONCLUSIONS: In a cross sectional survey such as this, the effects of
    both smoking and occupational exposure on respiratory health may be
    masked in subjects with both risk factors. This is probably due to
    strong selection processes which result in least susceptible subjects
    continuing to smoke and working in an atmosphere with respiratory irritants.


    The key result is that for the exposure controlled group (the potroom workers) the smoking reduced the risk of lung damage sixfold compared to never-smokers.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I look at it this way: While it's true that nearly 90% of lung cancers will be found in smokers, what is repeatedly ignored is the fact that less than 10% of smokers overall will ever get the disease. In simple terms, this means that even if you smoke, there's a greater than 90% chance overall that you'll never get lung cancer.(Unless you can find the time to suck down 3 packs a day; then it's reduced to about 85%.....) With that said, though, I am intrigued by the nuclear test theory; especially since places like Greece & Japan have a much higher number of smokers yet a much lower rate of lung cancer. Lung cancer rates in the US, however, are higher, yet far less people smoke. The Anti's simply blame that on secondhand smoke, so they have that covered. Admittedly, I can't figure one thing out. We are the only country thus far to have ever used nuclear weapons. We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The fallout from those bombings must still be in the atmosphere. Shouldn't the Japanese have higher rates of lung cancer?

    The Japanese also smoke much more. If I correctly understand the evidence Nightlight has provided, the Japanese would instinctively smoke more to seek the protective effects of smoking against the radiation, and that, along with other contributing factors, would reduce their rates of lung cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There is a new thread "Smoking is good for you" with over 450 posts and you can go check it to see how did your "... is a true crank" theory work out (and no, that wasn't the same guy as already noted by other members here; it should be pretty obvious, anyway). It turns out, after all was said and done, and after everyone presented their best arguments and papers, that tobacco smoke is much better than even the farthest claims in this thread. Below are few highlights of the "debate" (since all the hard science was squarely on one side, while the other side could only offer junk science, it was hardly a debate). Before jumping in with your "scientific proof" please check what was discusssed already (add your "proof" there since this thread has been inactive for years).


    1. Dogs exposed to radon or radon+smoke: 5% of smoking dogs and 37% of non-smoking dogs got lung cancers.

    2. Massive National Cancer Institute sponsored experiments that backfired terribly, setting back the NCI's workplace smoking bans agenda for over decade.

    3. The crowning experiments (2004, 2005) of six decades of antismoking "science", the pinnacle -- again backfired badly, as they always do -- at the end, more than twice as many smoking animals alive than non-smoking ones.

    4. Self-medication with tobacco

    5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking

    6. Hazards of quitting (triggers lung cancers in animal experiments)

    7. Emphysema/COPD - smoking protective rather than cause

    8. How does antismoking "science" lie with stats (how to "prove" that -- Prozac causes depression -- using method of antismoking "science")

    9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (is a 'friend saying Boo' more hazardous for your heart than SHS?)

    10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires

    11. Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions, Smoking protects against cancers

    12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke

    13. ** why take a chance

    14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires

    15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated

    16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand -- more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts hard science

    17. Can one replicate the health benefits of tobacco smoke (the short list given) using supplements and pharmaceuticals? Even if it were possible, can one do it for < $1 day (cost for a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes with natural, additive free tobacco)?

    18. Who knows more about biochemistry of life and its molecular engineering -- one little cell in your little toe or all the biochemists and molecular biologists in the world taken together? Is "Sickness Industry" good for your health?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Tobacco is a potent medicinal plant and youth elixir used for over 8000 years. Antismoking "science" is a money making scam, resting entirely on the worst kind of junk science, created and financed chiefly by the pharmaceutical industry. The big pharma reflexively seeks to suppress other natural medicines and folk remedies as well, especially those that work. Tobacco being the most beneifical natural medicine humans have ever known (tell me which other substance, matural or synthetic, extends the lifespan by 20% in animal experiments, while keeping the brain sharp into the old age, doubles our main internal detox and antioxidant enzymes glutathione, catalase and SOD,...), is the main target of the pharma's attacks on natural medicines.

    ReplyDelete
  50. In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men). Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they didn't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era (some smoking celebrity photos; wikpedia had a large list of smoking who-is-who in Hollywood, which was deleted recently, someone obviously has felt threatened by the unsuitable facts and decided to erase history and improve on truth, Orwell's 1984 or Stalin style; that's is quite typical for vicious antismoking hysterics, even FDR's cigarette was erased from old photos). Many models smoke today, to control weight and their skin looks fine, too.

    Some of the underlyng biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of youthfulness) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons (not just the same genetics, but sun & other exposures, diet, stress, socioeconomic status,...):

    a) Nicotine stimulates and upregulates growth and branching of blood vessels (via upregulation of vascular growth factor), especially of capillaries, which improves the nutrient delivery and cleanup (antioxidant & detox enzyme supplies) to all tissues, including brain and skin (provided person's intake of nutrients and supplements is adequate).

    b) Tobacco smoke (not nicotine) upregulates production of glutathione, catalase and SOD (our body's chief internal antioxidant and detox enzymes, sometimes used in cosmetics for skin rejuvenation), to nearly double levels.

    c) Carbon monoxide in low concentration (as delivered in tobacco smoke) acts as a signaling mechanism in human biochemical networks to increase blood circulation, oxygenation and reduce inflammation.

    d) Nitric oxide in low concentrations (as provided by tobacco smoke) acts as neurotransmitter, signaling to cardiovascular system to increase blood supplies to peripheral tissues (this is the biochemical mechanism behind the Viagra effect).

    e) Tobacco smoke upregulates levels of "youth hormones" DHEA and testosterone and reduces their decline with age.

    f) The highest quality brands (Japanese) of the miracle skin supplement and rejuvenator, Conezyme Q10 are produced from tobacco leaf, which is still the best source of natural Co-Q10 (since it includes the full synergistic complex which the cheaper synthetic production methods cannot replicate).

    g) Deprenyl (selegiline), which mimics the selective MAO B inhibitory properties of tobacco smoke (this is not related to nicotine) and is used in smoking cessation "therapies" for that reason, has become quite popular in life-extension circles, due to its almost magical rejuvenating powers.

    h) Nicotinic acid (byproduct of oxidized nicotine, as in burning tobacco, delivered directly into arterial bloodstream), along with its salts and various organic compounds, are skin-protective agents, used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There is nothing wrong in being dependent on something that is good for you. We are all "addicted" to food, water, air, family, friends, reading,... If something is good for you, transferring the need to replenish it to automated/reflexive systems (the so-called "addiction") is quite useful, time and effort saving transformation.
    You can also start smoking at any age and still benefit. The longest living man in the world, Shigechiyo Izumi (see at the top of the thread), started smoking at age 70. Some folks, scientifically well educated and health fanatics, who lived four or five decades as nonsmokers, until their lucky day when they decided to educate me, usually at a party or at work, that I ought to quit smoking, it is terribly bad for me,... and then I 'splained to them few things about glutathione, SOD, MAO B,... gave them books, emailed links to papers, and few days later they would ask me where can they order 'organic tobacco'..

    ReplyDelete
  52. It is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

    30 million humans of japan smoke.
    this is a high percentage of the population.
    http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

    and Japan has highest life expectancy.

    Cuba similar.

    see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm

    how many competitors had Mme Calment? BILLIONS.
    BILLIONS of non-smokers. and you assume that she would have lived longer if she did not smoke?
    world record holders can not make many mistakes. every detail must be perfect. smoking was an important detail.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Tobacco smoke is consequently, highly protective aginst Alzheimer's. This strong protective effect of t.s. against amyloidosis (in humans and lab animals) has been heavily researched.

    My position is that tobacco smoking (at the levels of common human smoking) is good for health and longevity and I offer scientific experiments clearly demonstrating the validity of the claim. I don't know of any such experiment or make similar claims about pure nicotine (although, I think it is harmful when taken alone in the long run, without the full synergistic complex of tobacco smoke).

    ReplyDelete
  54. It just happens that one among the myriad of beneficial effects of tobacco smoke, in his case due to nicotine, is stimulation of the growth and branching of blood vessels (via nicotine vascular growth factor upregulation; as you can see there is a vast ammount of literature about that effect). Since the greatest concentrations of nictine inhaled via tobacco smoke will be in the respiratory system, especially in lungs, that is where the greatest vascularization will take place. Consequently, the cancers (which are caused by the deliberately bred in genetic defects in this mice for that exact purpose) in the respiratory system will get most nutrients and have the fastest growth. That is precisely what these contractors (former Pfizer scientists & consultants) chose to measure, the growth of tumors in different tissues. Of course, as expected, in the smoking mice they found the most in the lungs, but fewer in the liver and other tissues. The same researchers conducted the same experiment on F344 rats (also a variety bred for cancers, like this mice) and obtained exactly same results, more tumors in the lungs than elsewhere.

    Although this may appear as something new to an uninformed reader, this effect is well known for more than three decades (the paper quoted below is from 1980 and they cite even older ones, cf. research review p. 97):

    Chronic Inhalation of Cigarette Smoke by F344 rats
    W.E. Dalbey at al., Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Inst. Environ. Health...
    J. National Cancer Inst., 64 (2): 383-390 (Feb 1980)

    "Smoke exposure did not change the total number of tumor-bearing animals relative to controls; however [smoke] exposed rats had significantly fewer tumors in the hypophyses, hematopletic-lymphoid system, uteri and ovaries, but an increased number of tumors in the respiratory tracts and dermes."

    These animal data fit in with the concepts of Prof. Oeser in Berlin and Dr. Lock in Hamburg, that, if properly assessed, the epidemiological data on cancers in general and for specific organs, indicate that total cancer rates have not changed, and that the only thing which has changed is that the increase in one type of cancer is compensated for by a decrease in other organ cancers.

    Curiously, the researchers in the 2005 mice paper, don't cite anything from this literature trail but purport that they have discovered an animal model for t.s. related lung cancer. Since this is a long known phenomenon unrelated to any alleged causative role of tobacco smoke in cancers (since any vascular growth stimulant will show exactly the same effect), it was discarded decades ago as a candidate for the l.c. model related to t.s. It is a pure vascular growth effect, unrelated to lung carcinogenicity (or the lack thereof) of tobacco smoke.

    ReplyDelete
  55. In summary, no there is no animal experiment, demonstrating that inhalation of tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Of course, S.S. Hecht's review paper (2005) on animal experiments reluctantly acknowledges this failure as well. The antismoking "science" has pursued this 'holy grail' for over six decades, with no expense or efforts spared, and still a dud. No wonder they are still stuck with the inconclusive epidemiological hints -- the hard, conclusive science goes the "wrong" way, so what can they do but remain inconclusive.
    ----
    Smoker lungs photos are a cheap fraud, see for example Colby's chapter on that antismoking myth. Since it is not so, the Marlboro question is unnecessary. Although the plain classical (additive free) tobacco leaf, honed over many millenia is certainly better for you than additives & sugars laden 'tobacco sheets' (fake leaf look-alike), just as it is the case with whole natural foods vs additive laden reconstituted food look-alikes in the supermarkets. The two classes of products are optimized to different utility functions, the classical natural stuff (foods or tobacco) is optimized for pleasant, beneficial effects on user, while the supermarket cheap look-alike stuff is tuned to maximize profits of the manufacturer (cheap ingredients, much cheaper to produce).

    Smoking kills mostly by causing cardiovascular disease, cancers are a distant second.
    That is also a myth. See this critical review where all major human randomized intervention trials were examined (one more here a major backfire; there were only handful ever done, because they simply don't "work" for antismoking "science") and they either showed no benefit in randomly selected quit group, or showed outright benefits of smoking for cardiovascular system (randomly selected smoking group had fewer heart attacks).

    Epidemiology (non-randomized samples) of course lacks resolution to say whether the smoke was protective (self-medication mechanism) or harmful (causal role in a disease), since either possibility can produce the same kind of statistical correlations on non-randomized samples.

    You know, if this was any other substance than tobacco, people would be going wild over it!

    ReplyDelete
  56. All 'class A carcinogens' easily cause cancers on lab animals (much easier than in humans e.g. "animal carcinogen" term) and shorten their lives. All except 'tobacco smoke' which not only fails to cause cancers in lab animals (strangely, though, it can do it only in humans), but it extends the lifespan of lab animals by 20%, while keeping them thinner and sharper into the old age. And all that despite over six decades of vast research efforts to demonstrate this very carcinogenicity.

    With tobacco everything is somehow the opposite and upside down from everything else in science. Logic included. As a smoker friend observed regarding some FDA pronouncement about smoking, with tobacco more is always worse, but less is always equally dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Some benefits of nicotine and smoking for schizophrenics:
    Quote
    Encephale. 2008 Jun;34(3):299-305. Epub 2007 Dec 26.
    [Smoking and schizophrenia: epidemiological and clinical features]
    [Article in French]

    Dervaux A, Laqueille X.

    Service d'Addictologie, centre hospitalier Sainte-Anne, 1 rue Cabanis, Paris, France. a.dervaux@ch-ste-anne.fr
    FREQUENCY: The prevalence of cigarette smoking is significantly higher among patients with schizophrenia (60-90%) than in the general population (23-30%). While tobacco smoking decreases in the general population (from 45% in the 1960's to 23-30% in the 2000's), smoking in patients with schizophrenia remains high. Patients with schizophrenia smoke more cigarettes than control subjects. Patients smoke more deeply, thereby increasing their exposure to the harmful elements in tobacco smoke. IMPACT OF SMOKING IN SCHIZOPHRENIC PATIENTS: As in the general population, smoking contributes to the reduced life expectancy in patients with schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease due to high rates of cigarette smoking. In the Department of Mental Health of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, cardiovascular disease was the factor the most strongly associated with excess mortality. Cardiac deaths were elevated more than six-fold. Weight gain, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and diabetes mellitus are frequent in patients with schizophrenia, and may worsen the risk of cardiovascular diseases. It has been reported that the risk for lung cancer in patients with schizophrenia is lower than that of the general population, despite increased smoking. However, in a study conducted in Finland, a slightly increased cancer risk was found in patients with schizophrenia. Half of the excess cases were attributable to lung cancer. IMPROVEMENT OF COGNITIVE DEFICITS: Patients with schizophrenia may use nicotine to reduce cognitive deficits and negative symptoms or neuroleptic side effects. Smoking may transiently alleviate negative symptoms in schizophrenic patients by increasing dopaminergic and glutamatergic neurotransmission in the prefrontal cortex. In patients with schizophrenia, nicotine improves some cognitive deficits: (1) sensory gating deficits and abnormalities in smooth pursuit eye movements associated with schizophrenia are transiently normalized with the administration of nicotine ; (2) high-dose nicotine transiently normalizes the abnormality in P50 inhibition in patients with schizophrenia and in their relatives; (3) in tasks that tax working memory and selective attention, nicotine may improve performance in schizophrenia patients by enhancing activation of and functional connectivity between brain regions that mediate task performance (Jacobsen et al. 2004; Paktar et al.2002); (4) cigarette smoking may selectively enhance visuospatial working memory and attentional deficits in smokers with schizophrenia. However, Harris et al., found that nicotine affects only the attention without effects of nicotine on learning, memory or visuospatial/constructional abilities. In addition, smoking could facilitate disinhibition in schizophrenic patients.

    PMID: 18558153

    ReplyDelete
  58. So, what is the lesson for humans(smokers and non-smokers) from all this? The basic fact established in animal experiments is that lifelong tobacco smoking will extend lifespan, regardless of genetic predisposition to cancers or carcinogenic exposures. If someone is genetically predisposed to cancers or is exposed to real carcinogens, tobacco smoke will still be protective throughout (e.g. via nearly doubled detox rates as well via the mechanisms mentioned in Indian paper at the top), as the experiment with dogs inhaling radon clearly demonstrated (similarly in other hamster, mice, rat experiments with co-exposures). The vascular effect (better angiogenesis in the lungs, which is normally quite beneficial, such as for physical laborers, athletes, soldiers or the 101 year marathon runners) implies that if a cancer eventually gets started despite the protective effects of tobacco smoke, depending on its location it may grow 'potentially faster' (in respiratory system) or always slower (elsewhere, since the protection still exists, it's just not strong enough, while vascular effect is absent or much smaller). Regarding the case of 'potentially faster' growth for respiratory cancers, the net effect again depends on the precise balance between the ongoing protective effects and the vascular effect, which now amplifies the cancer growth rate (but it helps amplify protective tobacco effects, too). Hence, it is the same kind of battle as elsewhere in the body (where protective effects of TS battle the growth of cancer), except that in the respiratory system, both sides are amplified by the vascular effect. So the net result in the respiratory system is down to the same kind of balance as elsewhere.

    The case of someone quitting smoking removes the protective effects of tobacco smoke, while leaving the vascular effect (the extra blood vessels and higher circulation remain) to help the cancer, whenever its natural onset begins (from genetic or environmental causes). That is the worst possible combination, worse than had he never-smoked, in which case the vascular effect in the lungs would have been absent. On the other hand, a lifelong smoker is always better off than had he never started smoking. He will live longer and age better than had he not started, regardless of when the cancers are set to start in his case. As the cancer-mice/rat experiments show, even in the cases of the extremely strong propensity to cancers (including in lungs), the net protective effect is beneficial -- smoking mice/rats still outlive the nonsmoking ones (despite the experiments & exposures being optimized to go the other way; human smoker optimizes the exposure in opposite direction than antismoking scientists did for the test animals).

    ReplyDelete
  59. There are no animal experiments with shortened lifespan of smoking animals, that model anything remotely comparable in dosing/concentration to human smoking, which is the subject of interest here -- is smoking good for you? Nobody is arguing in this thread that "smoking" using Dontenwill's only-in-Germany "smoking" machine is good for anyone (had someone tried those here in USA, PETA would have slashed the researcher's tires and firebombed their labs). It appears you just don't have anything better but to cling onto the same few strawmen argumens, repeated over and over, as if stuck in loop.

    Keep in mind that "the dose makes the poison". Even plain water, clean and pure as can be, can be very toxic, including lethal, if you overload you kidneys excretion capacity e.g. drink a gallon in half an hour. Your clinging to the Dontenwill's 'only-in-Gernany' "smoking" machines results, debunked several times already, are no different than arguing that drinking plain water is bad for humans, by citing cases of the letal water toxicity.

    ReplyDelete
  60. At the more fundamental level, tobacco smoke is highly protective against emphysema and bronchitis, since both diseases include chronic inflammatory processes as the key step of their etiology. The multutudes of anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke are one of its most distinguishing traits, recognized and appreciated since ancient times. The early spread of tobacco smoking through Europe was kicked off when the physicians for royalties started prescribing to their royal patients tobacco for coughs, flu, bronchitis, asthma, arthritis.. and variety of other inflammatory and auto-immune diseases. While some of these effects are due to nicotine, there others which only the full synergistic complex can deliver (e.g. see the recent rheumatoid arthritis experiment on mice, trying to tease out the this very difference).

    The conventional antismoking epidemiology, with its strict taboo against even mentioning medicinal effects of tobacco smoke, let alone measuring them and accounting for this strong self-medication confounding, cannot easily detect the protective effects of tobacco smoke against COPD, since the confounding skews the signal, often resulting in the apparent effect with exactly opposite sign from the pure signal (as one also expects to see from any medication and a disease, if one completely ignores the medication's therapeutic effects). The excellent example of the power of this skewing effect within the antismoking epidemiology is the above rheumatoid arthritis -- while epidemiology has declared smoking as "risk factor" for RA (which it is, within its taboo space, that discards the confounders) and advises patients to quit smoking (so the pharma can sell genuinely hazardous and damaging cortico-steroids for substitutes), the experiment above show how the tobacco smoke (and nicotine alone but to a lesser extent) protects cartilage from the incipient auto-immune damage, delaying the onset of clinical RA, and then continues protection by slowing down the breakdown of cartilage and progression of the disease (while also having analgesic effects that alleviate the painful symptoms, but this wasn't an issue with mice experiment above).

    ReplyDelete
  61. Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Chronic Inhalation of Cigarette Smoke by F344 rats
    W.E. Dalbey at al., Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Inst. Environ. Health...
    J. National Cancer Inst., 64 (2): 383-390 (Feb 1980)

    "Smoke exposure did not change the total number of tumor-bearing animals relative to controls; however [smoke] exposed rats had significantly fewer tumors in the hypophyses, hematopletic-lymphoid system, uteri and ovaries, but an increased number of tumors in the respiratory tracts and dermes."

    These animal data fit in with the concepts of Prof. Oeser in Berlin and Dr. Lock in Hamburg, that, if properly assessed, the epidemiological data on cancers in general and for specific organs, indicate that total cancer rates have not changed, and that the only thing which has changed is that the increase in one type of cancer is compensated for by a decrease in other organ cancers.

    Curiously, the researchers in the 2005 mice paper, don't cite anything from this literature trail but purport that they have discovered an animal model for t.s. related lung cancer. Since this is a long known phenomenon unrelated to any alleged causative role of tobacco smoke in cancers (since any vascular growth stimulant will show exactly the same effect), it was discarded decades ago as a candidate for the l.c. model related to t.s. It is a pure vascular growth effect, unrelated to lung carcinogenicity (or the lack thereof) of tobacco smoke.

    Of course, as soon as you check their survival figures, it becomes clear what a charade the whole "animal l.c. model" claim was -- the smoking mice outlived the non-smoking mice (cf. published paper p. 2001):

    ReplyDelete
  63. THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON

    This is an old, but often ignored, scientific axiom. What it means is that there are safe and unsafe levels of everything. A little bit of arsenic is just fine. A significantly large amount of orange juice could kill you. But antismokers are now trying to sell us a scientific absurdity: that smoking is dangerous at any level.

    1.USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).

    2. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.

    3.Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**

    4.All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**

    5. Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.

    6.Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3

    7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.

    8.A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.

    9.No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.

    10.In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23

    11. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

    ReplyDelete
  64. To get a bit more balanced picture on the subject of tobacco smoking (and avoid harming yourself by falling for the media brainwashing), check the following references:

    1. The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking by J. R. Johnstone & P. D. Finch

    2. "In Defense of Smokers" by L. A. Colby

    3. "Smoking is good for you" by Dr. W. T. Whitby

    4. Therapeutic Effects of Smoking (misc. scientific references; also article "World's Oldest -- All Smokers)

    5. LF thread on WHO study showing that secondary smoke is protective against lung cancer (lots of discussion and other links)

    6. SE thread Tobacco Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer (more links & references cited in the discussion; see also on immune stimulus & correlations with diseases)

    Now, of course, additive and pesticide laden supermarket cigarettes, like much of supermarket foods, are junk and likely harmful. Filters are also harmful since they shed non-biodegradable fibers.

    On the other hand, additive free, organically grown pure tobacco leaf, such as American Spirit, rolled in thin paper (on how to "roll your own" and "stuff your own") or used in a pipe, is the way it was meant to be done, the way our grandfathers smoked it. Tobacco was cultivated for thousands of years as the sacred medicinal plant and real science (unlike the anti-tobacco junk science) is only beginning to uncover some of its magic. Nicotine is just one tiny bit of its medicinal power (that's why nicotine patches or antidepressants don't work for quitting; e.g. they don't stimulate glutathione or act as MAO inhibitors). For example, Coenzyme Q10, the miracle supplement, is actually tobacco leaf, it was discovered there and the best brands are still manufactured from tobacco leaf, even though it can be now synthesized artificially (see Whitby's book #3, also #6).

    Note also that the anti-smoking propaganda is peddled largely by the same actors (FDA, CDC, EPA, AMA, NCI) and backed up by the same kind of pseudo-science (and money that buys it) that peddle the theory that "mouthful of mercury is safe and effective" and "thimerosal injected into babies causes them no harm". The same guys, the same alphabet soup agencies, the same money and and the same bought "science".

    So, read the materials for yourself, all sides of the story, but before anything else, listen and trust signals from your own body. A single cell in your little toe knows more about biochemistry, genetics and detox at the molecular level than all the science and technology in the world put together. If you were to take all of the world's medical, biochemical and pharmaceutical science & technology in one gigantic team, give them all the money and resources they want and ask them to create one live cell from scratch, they wouldn't even know how to create one organelle, a tiny organ of cell, let alone a whole live cell (or to say nothing about a vastly more complex human organism). Yet, the little "dumb" cells, which are actually unamaginably complex biochemical networks (i.e. distributed, self-programming natural computers of the same kind as human brain), create new live cells from scratch every day all day long, without breaking a sweat, as it were.

    ReplyDelete
  65. " If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
    Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

    ReplyDelete
  66. THE IMPORTANCE OF TOBACCO IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

    foglia.gif (1301 bytes)Blinded by pharmaceutically financed hatred and bigotry, the WHO and the rest of the international antitobacco cartel scream that the tobacco industry has expanded its "business of death" (never mind if nothing is scientifically proven) to the developing countries. Of course, hate and propaganda is blind to the immense economic benefits that tobacco brings to those countries. Here is a description of those benefits.

    http://www.forces.org/

    ReplyDelete
  67. COVER-UP:
    NON-SMOKING IS A RISK FOR THROMBOEMBOLISM

    There has recently been a resurgence of medical interest in the subject of postoperative thromboembolism. Surgery and immobilization can precipitate deep venous thrombosis, and the clot can break loose and lodge in the lung. There is excess risk for a month or more afterwards. The leg is the most frequent source of the clot.

    There are about 170,000 episodes of venous thromboembolism, 90,000 of them recurrent in the US every year (FA Anderson Jr, HB Wheeler, RJ Goldberg, DW Hosmer, A Forcier, NA Patwardhan. Ann Intern Med 1991;115;591-595).

    In the UK, 10% of all hospital deaths are due to pulmonary embolism (Thromboembolic Risk Factor (THRIFT) Consensus Group. BMJ 1992 Sept 5; 305:567-574).

    Recent studies say nothing about the effects of smoking. Smoking does not appear on any of their list of risk factors. In fact,
    between 1974 and 1980, it was discovered, to everybody's surprise, that non-smokers were at considerably greater risk for deep venous thrombosis. This was discussed in the British Medical Journal, then the subject mysteriously disappeared, without attracting attention in the US.

    Is it too emotionally and politically unacceptable for the anti-smoking establishment to admit the truth? It seems they would rather say nothing at all, than to admit that smoking is not a risk factor, let alone that non-smoking is one. Here are the studies they refuse to talk about:


    Handley AJ, Teather D. Influence of smoking on deep vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. RMJ 1974 Jul 27;3:230-231. 17/61 (28%) of smokers, 19/37 (51%) of nonsmokers developed DVT. Excluding high-risk, 7/38 (18%) of smokers, 9/22 (41%) of nonsmokers did.


    Clayton, JK, Anderson JA, McNicol GP. Preoperative prediction of postoperative deep vein thrombosis. BMJ 1976 Oct. 16;2:910-912. 5/55 (9.1%) of smokers vs 15/69 (22%) of nonsmokers were positive (gynaecologic surgery).

    Pollock AV, Evans M. (letter) Cigarette smoking and postoperative deep-vein thrombosis. BMJ 1978 Aug. 26;2:637. 10/52 (19.2%) of cigarette smoker, 7/17 (41.2%) of pipe smokers, 35/97 (36.1%) of nonsmoker laparotomy or prostatectomy patients developed DVT. "Although it may be true that cigarette smokers are younger and thinner than nonsmokers, that is certainly not the whole explanation of the protective effect of this otherwise undesirable [sic] habit."

    Bucknall TE, Bowker T, Leaper DJ. Does increased movement protect smokers from post-operative deep vein thrombosis? BMJ 1980 Feb 16;280:447. In 40 inguinal herniorrhaphy patients, differences in amount of movement were not significant.

    Kierkegaard A, Norgren L, Olsson C-G, Castenfors J, Persson GS. Incidence of deep vein thrombosis in bedridden non-surgical patients. Acta Med Scand 1987;222:409-414. 1/12 = 8% smokers, 12/89 = 13% non-smokers positive for DVT, nonsignificant.

    Only a single study did not confirm these findings:

    Hayes MJ, Morris GK, Hampton JR. Lack of effect of bed rest and cigarette smoking on development of deep venous thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Br Heart J 1976;38:981-983. 28/113 (25%) s, 14/69 (20%) n positive.


    "Venous thrombosis lenghtens the staying of patients undergoing general surgery by seven days," increasing the costs by $2005 in 1984 dollars (G Oster, RL Tuden, GA Colditz. Prevention of venous thromboembolism after general surgery. Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative approaches to prophylaxis. Am J Med 1987 May;82:889-899).


    Courtesy of Carol Thompson 08/23/93
    Smokers' Rights Action Group
    P.O. Box 259575
    Madison, WI 53725-9575
    Phone: 608-249-4568

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anti-smoker publicists openly wish to claim that smokers' hospitalization costs are greater than non-smokers', to run up the economic cost of smoking, but little has come of it in the light of truth. Perhaps they discovered to their dismay that the truth was not on their side. The Oster study may be the salvaged remains of such an attempt.

    Routine prophylaxis of surgical patients with anticoagulants has been recommended to decrease thromboembolism. But this may cause more risks than it would prevent in low-risk patients. Smokers' lives would be needlessly jeopardized if they are treated under the assumption that their risk is the same as non-smokers', or worse, if they are more likely to be treated in the false belief that they are at greater risk because they smoke. And non-smokers are jeopardized if they are assumed to be safe.

    How many people have died as a result of this anti-smoker mentality? It is, frankly, impossible to judge. The utter scientific irresponsibility promulgated by this mindset has a potential for endless repercussions -- economically, socially and medically.

    Courtesy of Carol Thompson 08/23/93
    Smokers' Rights Action Group
    P.O. Box 259575
    Madison, WI 53725-9575
    Phone: 608-249-4568

    ReplyDelete
  69. Comments Disclaimer:
    All pro-smoking comments have been posted by the same person, February 13, 2012.

    I haven't considered them "spam" or "troll" because they show a coherent point of view, even though it's this article's exact opposite.

    BUT even if tobacco smoke has in fact health benefits, the chemicals mixed with it are known to be harmful to the human body. Recently, there have been added new ones and they will keep adding, because it's part of their depopulation & control scheme.

    IF you want to keep smoking, at least smoke your own-grown tobacco or buy it from farmers.

    More importantly, follow your intuition. You already know what to do.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Not trolling just providing corrections to the myth that smoking is bad for your health.

    The picture is a shame. Smoking does NOT blacken lungs. There is no visible difference of the lungs between a non smoker and heavy smokers. Please see/read the book Smoke Screen.

    Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco

    Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco is a book of the same name exploring the links between smoking and disease and exposing the anti-smoking lobby's deceit ...

    smokescreens.org

    ReplyDelete
  71. I don't know if smoking turns black a smoker's lungs, because I've never seen human lungs in reality. But I bet there must be readers who have seen and I am interested in their "testimonies".

    If smoking doesn't affect the color, then this could have been proven long time ago. There must be millions of surgeons around the world who see lungs on a daily basis.

    I'm interested to know more...

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think smoking itself is not that bad for your health but all the chemicals added in tobbaco are the real killer here.

    ReplyDelete

In order to counter the increasing amount of spam, phishing (money scam) and aggressive advertising, you are kindly invited to log in to your Google Account before leaving a comment.

Please, be polite and bring arguments to your statements. Trolling, phishing, spamming, strong language and advertising is not allowed. Thank you!

emo-but-icon

Sponsors:

Like & Follow

Sponsors

Hot this week

Sponsors

Thanks for the coffee!

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Google+

Random

Translate

Sponsors

Recommended

Kindle Best Price

Follow

Sponsors

Pageviews

item