Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Who Says Smokimg Is Bad For You?


Guest anorthosite

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It doesn't seem to have hurt Alex Higgins:

article-0-09A5A268000005DC-573_468x788.jpg

<Irony mode off>

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

Have read of that. Here are a few things for you to consider too...

1. Why are lung cancer rates much lower in countries with the highest incidence of smoking? See Japan for example.

2. Find me a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates that tobacco smoke induces carcinogenesis in lung tissue. Interestingly this is done very readily with diesel fumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are clearly suffering from Zanuliebour thought crimes.

Smoking is:

  • Good for you
  • Good for freedom
  • Good for the economy
  • Good for the country
  • Good for foxes - they actually enjoy it

Please attend your local ConDem good citizen re-training facility.

+1

and hurry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.journalof.../Vol-1/e1-4.htm

Have read of that. Here are a few things for you to consider too...

1. Why are lung cancer rates much lower in countries with the highest incidence of smoking? See Japan for example.

2. Find me a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates that tobacco smoke induces carcinogenesis in lung tissue. Interestingly this is done very readily with diesel fumes.

This is just a bizarre set of statements. The link between lung cancer and smoking was made beyond reasonable doubt by Richard Doll's study in the 1950s LINK TO BMJ. Although the tobacco indistry seemed to have pioneered some popular 'spread the doubt' tactics to muddy the waters and cast doubt on his findings. More recent studies have shown a drop in cancer rates among quitters with a strong correlation between time quit and a lower rate of lung cancer. LINK to STUDY IN BMJ.

Given the weight of evidence it amazes me that anyone questions that smoking is a major cause of mouth/throat/lung cancers. Remove tobacco from the equation and lung cancer is quite rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a bizarre set of statements. The link between lung cancer and smoking was made beyond reasonable doubt by Richard Doll's study in the 1950s LINK TO BMJ. Although the tobacco indistry seemed to have pioneered some popular 'spread the doubt' tactics to muddy the waters and cast doubt on his findings. More recent studies have shown a drop in cancer rates among quitters with a strong correlation between time quit and a lower rate of lung cancer. LINK to STUDY IN BMJ.

Given the weight of evidence it amazes me that anyone questions that smoking is a major cause of mouth/throat/lung cancers. Remove tobacco from the equation and lung cancer is quite rare.

Did you read the article in the journal of theoretics? Tell you what, I'll paypal you a grand if you can refute any assertion made in that paper, or provide a paper detailing the link between tobacco smoke and carcinogenesis These statements seem bizarre only because you've been conditioned by anti-smoking hysteria. As for Richard Doll, he was a fraudster and zealot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the article in the journal of theoretics? Tell you what, I'll paypal you a grand if you can refute any assertion made in that paper, or provide a paper detailing the link between tobacco smoke and carcinogenesis These statements seem bizarre only because you've been conditioned by anti-smoking hysteria. As for Richard Doll, he was a fraudster and zealot.

You want to try therealjournaloftheoretics.com which replaced the splinter group .journaloftheoretics.com.

I don't think anyone has to refute the assertations made in the paper you linked to.

Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women

."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to try therealjournaloftheoretics.com which replaced the splinter group .journaloftheoretics.com.

I don't think anyone has to refute the assertations made in the paper you linked to.

."

Umm, what are you talking about. It's a legitimate paper, and provides citations for all data used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, what are you talking about. It's a legitimate paper, and provides citations for all data used.

The citations say

Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The citations say

You utter cretin. There are citations taken from many papers, it does not mean their conclusions are being supported, rather quotations are used and then compared with other data to demonstrate a flaw of reasoning. Here is some more data for you consider, any reasonable explanation?

http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm

If as is widely believed smoking causes lung cancer, it is somewhat strange to discover lower rates in countries with a higher incidence of smoking. Can you account for this anomaly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You utter cretin. There are citations taken from many papers, it does not mean their conclusions are being supported, rather quotations are used and then compared with other data to demonstrate a flaw of reasoning. Here is some more data for you consider, any reasonable explanation?

http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm

If as is widely believed smoking causes lung cancer, it is somewhat strange to discover lower rates in countries with a higher incidence of smoking. Can you account for this anomaly?

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the article in the journal of theoretics? Tell you what, I'll paypal you a grand if you can refute any assertion made in that paper, or provide a paper detailing the link between tobacco smoke and carcinogenesis These statements seem bizarre only because you've been conditioned by anti-smoking hysteria. As for Richard Doll, he was a fraudster and zealot.

What the hell, it's a slow day at work, I'll bite.

First of all, the paper you linked to contradicts itself in the first sentance:

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer.

If something is a risk factor then that means that it causes it. If smoking didn't cause cancer then it wouldn't be a risk factor, would it?

Here's a nice paper for you:

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

Abstract:

The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer. Among the multiple components of tobacco smoke, 20 carcinogens convincingly cause lung tumors in laboratory animals or humans and are, therefore, likely to be involved in lung cancer induction. Of these, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone are likely to play major roles. This review focuses on carcinogens in tobacco smoke as a means of simplifying and clarifying the relevant information that provides a mechanistic framework linking nicotine addiction with lung cancer through exposure to such compounds. Included is a discussion of the mechanisms by which tobacco smoke carcinogens interact with DNA and cause genetic changesmechanisms that are reasonably well understoodand the less well defined relationship between exposure to specific tobacco smoke carcinogens and mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Molecular epidemiologic studies of gene-carcinogen interactions and lung canceran approach that has not yet reached its full potentialare also discussed, as are inhalation studies of tobacco smoke in laboratory animals and the potential role of free radicals and oxidative damage in tobacco-associated carcinogenesis. By focusing in this review on several important carcinogens in tobacco smoke, the complexities in understanding tobacco-induced cancer can be reduced, and new approaches for lung cancer prevention can be envisioned.

Now this is just the abstract and there's far too much to really post here but if you read through you'll find multiple pieces of evidence for the carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke and mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer.

Before you get too excited about the death rate statistics, remember that smoking is also a risk factor for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, leukaemia, bladder cancer, cerviacal cancer, penile cancer and TBH pretty much any other kind of cancer there is out there. Smoking has been linked to approximately 30% of all cancer deaths in the US.

Smoking also causes COPD, heart disease, hypertension, infertility, impotence and a whole list of other diseases I'm not even going to bother to look up as I trust my point is clear.

Now, would you like my PayPal details?

Edit (forgot this one):

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/7/645

Compared with smokers, men and women nonsmokers survived 1.6–3.9 and 1.6–3.6 years longer, respectively, depending on level of physical activity. When smokers were disabled and close to death, most nonsmokers were still nondisabled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If smoking didn't cause cancer then it wouldn't be a risk factor, would it?

Maybe it would be better to educate the public and tell them it is a risk factor rather than a cause.

Genes are also a risk factor in most cancers.

The public needs a better understand of risks anyway. Telling them "smoking causes cancer" is factually incorrect and may well lead to other false assumptions. How many people are there who refuse to smoke on health grounds and yet top up their tan every summer, eat too much trans fats.

Nothing wrong with "smoking causes heart disease" though.

I think smoking risks needs to be looked at compared to other risks. Smoking helps suppress appetite. With some people, they are either going to be smokers or obese. Which is worse? I'd argue that smoking is actually better for them, all in all, on physical AND mental health grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be better to educate the public and tell them it is a risk factor rather than a cause.

Genes are also a risk factor in most cancers.

The public needs a better understand of risks anyway. Telling them "smoking causes cancer" is factually incorrect and may well lead to other false assumptions. How many people are there who refuse to smoke on health grounds and yet top up their tan every summer, eat too much trans fats.

Nothing wrong with "smoking causes heart disease" though.

I think smoking risks needs to be looked at compared to other risks. Smoking helps suppress appetite. With some people, they are either going to be smokers or obese. Which is worse? I'd argue that smoking is actually better for them, all in all, on physical AND mental health grounds.

Rolf, smoking DOES cause cancer, especially respiratory ones, throat ,larynx, lung etc. It also a risk factor in many, many others. So telling people it causes cancer is NOT factually incorrect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell, it's a slow day at work, I'll bite.

First of all, the paper you linked to contradicts itself in the first sentance:

If something is a risk factor then that means that it causes it. If smoking didn't cause cancer then it wouldn't be a risk factor, would it?

Here's a nice paper for you:

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

Now this is just the abstract and there's far too much to really post here but if you read through you'll find multiple pieces of evidence for the carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke and mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer.

Before you get too excited about the death rate statistics, remember that smoking is also a risk factor for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, leukaemia, bladder cancer, cerviacal cancer, penile cancer and TBH pretty much any other kind of cancer there is out there. Smoking has been linked to approximately 30% of all cancer deaths in the US.

Smoking also causes COPD, heart disease, hypertension, infertility, impotence and a whole list of other diseases I'm not even going to bother to look up as I trust my point is clear.

Now, would you like my PayPal details?

Edit (forgot this one):

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/7/645

So using your logic, we can assert the following

Breathing air causes cancer

Drinking water causes cancer

Everyone that has ever developed cancer has done both of these, clearly therefore e can conclude these things cause cancer.

As for the paper you quoted, it makes bold assertions, but has no experimental data to back it up. How about this?

"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 tumours occurred in the untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of tumours 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 tumours occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the latter, the largest number of tumours occurred in rats exposed to smoke from cigarettes having the lowest level of nicotine.

So in this experiment, smoking actually resulted in a lower cancer rate. Again, how do you account for the anomaly that countries with higher smoking prevalence have dramatically lower levels of lung cancer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So using your logic, we can assert the following

Breathing air causes cancer

Drinking water causes cancer

Everyone that has ever developed cancer has done both of these, clearly therefore e can conclude these things cause cancer.

As for the paper you quoted, it makes bold assertions, but has no experimental data to back it up. How about this?

"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 tumours occurred in the untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of tumours 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 tumours occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the latter, the largest number of tumours occurred in rats exposed to smoke from cigarettes having the lowest level of nicotine.

So in this experiment, smoking actually resulted in a lower cancer rate. Again, how do you account for the anomaly that countries with higher smoking prevalence have dramatically lower levels of lung cancer?

Now granted I'm not particularly interested in stumping up to actually view this paper online, but the abstract is freely available:

Abstract

Groups of 80 female rats were exposed to cigarette smoke from three types (code 13 = high tar, low nicotine; code 27 = low tar, medium nicotine; code 32 = high tar, high nicotine) of cigarettes in Maddox-ORNL smoking machines, eight cigarettes per day, 7 days per week, for up to 24 months. An additional group received sham exposures and a fifth group served as untreated controls. The sham-exposed animals had significantly lower body weights than the untreated controls. The smoke-exposed animals had significantly lower weights than the sham-exposed controls; the weights were lower for the code 27 and code 32 animals than for the code 13 animals during the second year of exposure. The survival of the code 13 animals was similar to that for the sham-exposed and untreated control group; survival times of the code 27 and code 32 animals were shorter. Body weight and survival reflected the high- and low-nicotine dose groups indicated by in vivo dosimetry measurements. Smoke-induced histopathologic lesions consisted primarily of pulmonary smoke granulomas; the smoke granulomas were less severe in the code 27 exposure group than in the groups exposed to smoke from code 13 or code 32 cigarettes. Additional changes included pulmonary alveolar epithelial hyperplasia, and squamous metaplasia and basal cell hyperplasia of laryngeal and tracheal epithelium. One primary epidermoid carcinoma was found in the lung of a code 27 rat. The rats tolerated the chronic exposures relatively well and certain of the smoke-induced lesions allowed differentiation between the different types of cigarettes.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this say that the rats that were subjected to cigarette smoke had a shorter survival time than those that weren't? Could this perhaps be a fine example of the quote-mine?

With regards to your other points, there was actually a great deal of experimental evidence in the paper I posted. The fact that this has passed you be rather suggests that you haven't actually bothered to read the paper. Since you seem to like the references game, there were 249 at the bottom of the paper. I think you'll find some experiments in there. The paper also goes into some detail about methods of carcinogenesis from cigarette smoke. If you really can't be bothered to read it I can copy and paste some of it on here.

Your point about drinking and breathing is somewhat absurd. Why is it (and even that wacky paper you posted earlier admits this) that people who smoke have a higher rate of cancer, heart disease, impotence and the rest than those that don't? This is why scientists draw the link between smoking and all these diseases. That and the fact that at least some of the mechanisms by which smoking causes these diseases are well understood.

Now, about that £1,000...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my grandads died age 65 - he was a teetotaler, vegitarian, non smoker, always in shape.

The other is still alive and overweight, aged 90, alcoholic, smokes like a chimney. Still waddles around and has all his marbles, somehow.

Go figure. lifes a bitch.

If you enjoy smoking, smoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now granted I'm not particularly interested in stumping up to actually view this paper online, but the abstract is freely available:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this say that the rats that were subjected to cigarette smoke had a shorter survival time than those that weren't? Could this perhaps be a fine example of the quote-mine?

With regards to your other points, there was actually a great deal of experimental evidence in the paper I posted. The fact that this has passed you be rather suggests that you haven't actually bothered to read the paper. Since you seem to like the references game, there were 249 at the bottom of the paper. I think you'll find some experiments in there. The paper also goes into some detail about methods of carcinogenesis from cigarette smoke. If you really can't be bothered to read it I can copy and paste some of it on here.

Your point about drinking and breathing is somewhat absurd. Why is it (and even that wacky paper you posted earlier admits this) that people who smoke have a higher rate of cancer, heart disease, impotence and the rest than those that don't? This is why scientists draw the link between smoking and all these diseases. That and the fact that at least some of the mechanisms by which smoking causes these diseases are well understood.

Now, about that £1,000...

By the way, the human equivalent exposure based on size would be in the order of thousands of cigarettes a day, so the experiment was setup to try and induce carcinogenesis. It's a miracle any of the rats subjected to such ridiculously high levels of smoke survived at all. The fact that the smoke exposed rats had a lower rate of lung cancer is quite remarkable given the experimenter clearly wanted the opposite to be true. Again you have ignored my query, so I will restate it: Why do countries with high levels prevalence of smoking has significantly lower levels of lung cancer than countries with low prevalence of smoking in the population? Surely this fact alone should lead you to question the unproven statement that smoking causes lung cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not account for significantly lower levels of lung cancer in populations with high smoking prevalence. You ignore this fact because it totally refutes the assertion: smoking causes cancer.

Did I say that it did?

A basic principle in science is that of a fair test. That is, if you are making a comparison you need to make sure to account for other influences when performing your comparison. So, in comparing different countries you are not comparing like for like. What, for example, are the historical smoking rates for these different populations? Given that it takes years or decades for cancer to develop, looking at smoking and lung cancer rates is not very helpful. What is the cancer care like in those countries and how does that affect long term survival rates?

Like it or not, whenever you do a population study where these differences have been taken into account, smokers tend to have worse health outcomes. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the human equivalent exposure based on size would be in the order of thousands of cigarettes a day, so the experiment was setup to try and induce carcinogenesis. It's a miracle any of the rats subjected to such ridiculously high levels of smoke survived at all. The fact that the smoke exposed rats had a lower rate of lung cancer is quite remarkable given the experimenter clearly wanted the opposite to be true. Again you have ignored my query, so I will restate it: Why do countries with high levels prevalence of smoking has significantly lower levels of lung cancer than countries with low prevalence of smoking in the population? Surely this fact alone should lead you to question the unproven statement that smoking causes lung cancer.

Whereas I should ignore the thousands of peer review papers that say otherwise based on the sayso of some crackpot website? I don't think so. By the way, do you actually have the paper you're blathering on about or is that just a third-hand quote off of some website. The reason I ask is that the abstract for that paper appears to say something quite different to what you're suggesting.

Did you read any of the paper I posted? You know, the one with experimental data and stuff?

Thought not. Now about that £1,000...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this chart may prove interesting:

crukmig_1000img-12881.jpg

Source:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/#geog

Unsurprisingly, cancer deaths lag number of smokers by quite a wide margin. Thus, in a country which has managed to dramatically reduce the number of people who smoke, there is an apparent discrepancy between number of smokers and number of cancer deaths. Over time though the number of cancer deaths will decline in line with the number of smokers.

By the way, I wonder if Boom Boom can tell us what the difference is between these two lungs and why:

p9722spm.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.