Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The link to the study was posted earlier, twice, and the link is in the Heartland article.

Logical fallacy? No.

We are talking about second hand smoke at the moment, more people are exposed to car exhaust everyday than are exposed to second smoke. So saying non smokers get cancer or lung cancer from second hand smoke is just stupid. There is no way to prove that.

You would have to raise two control groups or three even in sealed bubbles and expose each control group to smoke, exhaust and clean air. For their whole lives! Then you would have t o determine if genetics had an effect on them.

It's impossible.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by timetothink

 

James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003

This is where the Heartland article came from.

Here is what Enstrom had to say to the tobacco companies ....

"A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."

Basically he told them to pay him and he would contradict the anti-smoking crowd. The data that he used in the study you ar pushing was collected ONLY for active smokers. Passive smoking was NEVER intended for the data, and it had NO controls to account for it properly.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The link to the study was posted earlier, twice, and the link is in the Heartland article.

Logical fallacy? No.

We are talking about second hand smoke at the moment, more people are exposed to car exhaust everyday than are exposed to second smoke. So saying non smokers get cancer or lung cancer from second hand smoke is just stupid. There is no way to prove that.

You would have to raise two control groups or three even in sealed bubbles and expose each control group to smoke, exhaust and clean air. For their whole lives! Then you would have t o determine if genetics had an effect on them.

It's impossible.

At the bottom of page 4 I responded to your study. It's a hack piece paid for and bought by tobacco companies, and has been thoroughly trashed and rejected. I posted SOME of the numerous objections the scientific community had with it. HUNDREDS of rebuttals were written pointing out the numerous flaws. It's complete trash.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The link to the study was posted earlier, twice, and the link is in the Heartland article.

Logical fallacy? No.

We are talking about second hand smoke at the moment, more people are exposed to car exhaust everyday than are exposed to second smoke. So saying non smokers get cancer or lung cancer from second hand smoke is just stupid. There is no way to prove that.

You would have to raise two control groups or three even in sealed bubbles and expose each control group to smoke, exhaust and clean air. For their whole lives! Then you would have t o determine if genetics had an effect on them.

It's impossible.

In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.

www.library.ucsf.edu...

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Like I said earlier, it's all about the agenda.

It's about who has the bigger pockets, who's propaganda is better and who's better at manipulating statistics.

I posted another study earlier that showed that lung cancer rates are going up in non smokers. Doesn't fit the argument does it? Smoking bans, less smokers around, yet rates are going up.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Like I said earlier, it's all about the agenda.

It's about who has the bigger pockets, who's propaganda is better and who's better at manipulating statistics.

I posted another study earlier that showed that lung cancer rates are going up in non smokers. Doesn't fit the argument does it? Smoking bans, less smokers around, yet rates are going up.

Red herring. Has nothing to do with the debate, which is smoking, and passive smoking, has negative health consequences. The fact other things do as well has nothing to do with anything. It is not about agenda. It is about shoddy science paid for by tobacco companies, used in a manner the information was never intended to be used, and being warned that the information would not be reliable used in said manner.

This very study you are pushing has been PROVEN in court to be a propaganda piece paid for by tobacco companies to confuse the public. If you are so far embedded in your belief you want to believe propaganda go for it, I have thoroughly destroyed your entire point of view and the study you pushed. You are welcome to view MY study which proves a significant correlation between passive smoking and negative outcomes.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Dear Pardon

First of all - your "facts" are wrong! Smokers or ex-smokers DO NOT account for 80 - 90 % of COPD.

copd.about.com...

Smokers and ex-smokers account for about 75 % of COPD cases. What an astounding surprise considering that almost 75 % of the population are either smokers or ex-smokers.

Now read the rest of the fact sheet for the risk factors of COPD. Do you think smokers and ex-smokers are immune to those factors? Why is it that when a smoker gets a disease - why surprise surprise - it was "caused" by smoking". But when a never-smoker gets the same disease - well there are other factors.

The medical and scientific community defines a smoker as someone who smoked only 100 cigarettes in their entire lifetime. So if you tried a few cigarettes behind the barn when you were 14 and get COPD sixty years later - why, by gosh - it was smoking what done it.

Notice what else is said in this fact sheet.

he answer to this question is yes and no. Once diagnosed, the disease runs the same, irreversible course; however, in never-smokers, the disease may be somewhat unrecognizable because doctors won't think to look for it. The disease will also progress more rapidly in those who continue to smoke as opposed to those who don't.

Does COPD Affect Never-Smokers Differently? The answer to this question is yes and no. Once diagnosed, the disease runs the same, irreversible course; however, in never-smokers, the disease may be somewhat unrecognizable because doctors won't think to look for it. The disease will also progress more rapidly in those who continue to smoke as opposed to those who don't.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DISEASE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE OR THE TREATMENT - whether the person is a smoker or not?

So please explain to me - how does anybody know what caused COPD in any particular person?

Tired of Control Freaks

Why are you replying to me with that?
I think you've misread either the poster name or the post itself.
The only post I've made on this concerned the "fat & lazy", nothing at all about COPD.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


And the study used by the FDA, CDC and WHO was also vacated on the federal level, but they keep using it anyway. I posted that earlier also. And I am not pushing the study, the op posted it, I reported and commented.
Both sides of the debate are going off of invalidated studies.

Bottom line is there is too much pollution in the air to say for sure which one is causing which disease.

Until every other form of pollution is removed, picking on one group of people who are the smallest part of the problem is a waste of money and time.

Banning smoking is the red herring here, the old look over there trick.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

And the study used by the FDA, CDC and WHO was also vacated on the federal level, but they keep using it anyway. I posted that earlier also. And I am not pushing the study, the op posted it, I reported and commented.
Both sides of the debate are going off of invalidated studies.

Bottom line is there is too much pollution in the air to say for sure which one is causing which disease.

Until every other form of pollution is removed, picking on one group of people who are the smallest part of the problem is a waste of money and time.

Banning smoking is the red herring here, the old look over there trick.

What study do you refer to? There are many, that nearly all agree smoking is bad.

You are wrong, we can tell.

Sorry you don't get to keep blowing smoke in my face because other bad things exist.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


what kind of common sense do you have?

Smoke must be the only carcinogen in the world that gets MORE toxic, the more dilute and further away from the source that you get! With second hand smoke MORE toxic than active smoking and third hand smoke more toxic than second hand smoke!

What kind of common sense does that make? Do you not know pure unadulterated bull# when you hear it?

This flies in the face of the rules of science "the dose makes the poison"

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

what kind of common sense do you have?

Smoke must be the only carcinogen in the world that gets MORE toxic, the more dilute and further away from the source that you get! With second hand smoke MORE toxic than active smoking and third hand smoke more toxic than second hand smoke!

What kind of common sense does that make? Do you not know pure unadulterated bull# when you hear it?

This flies in the face of the rules of science "the dose makes the poison"

Tired of Control Freaks

I will assume English is not your first language. So please find someone who understands English and have them re-read my post which clearly states second hand smoke has been found to have an effect ranging from 80-90% of regular smoking. In case your friend who will be helping you can't understand, that is a lower effect.

Now, please show me where there is a science rule of the dose makes the poison, as many people who are drug addicts consume a dose on a regular basis that would kill anyone who had not built up a tolerance. Maybe if you research some you will not keep being so wrong all the time.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


The Enstrom study was the most extensively peer reviewed study ever published.

Telling the tobacco company's or the anti-tobacco crowd that money is required to do research is NOT the same as saying "pay me and I will give you the conclusion you want"

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

The Enstrom study was the most extensively peer reviewed study ever published.

Telling the tobacco company's or the anti-tobacco crowd that money is required to do research is NOT the same as saying "pay me and I will give you the conclusion you want"

Tired of Control Freaks

Seriously, you have no clue what peer review means if you say that. The peer review process for the Enstrom study was a joke. The peer reviewers had ZERO experts in the subject. They were not told the study was funded by tobacco companies. They were not told the data was collected for FIRST HAND smokers only and could NOT be transferred to passive smoking. The BJM has a much WEAKER peer review process than other journals such as the NEJM.

It has already been proven in court that Enstrom was paid by the tobacco companies to deceive the public. Want me to go on with the problems? There are so many a whole book could be written.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

what kind of common sense do you have?

Smoke must be the only carcinogen in the world that gets MORE toxic, the more dilute and further away from the source that you get! With second hand smoke MORE toxic than active smoking and third hand smoke more toxic than second hand smoke!

What kind of common sense does that make? Do you not know pure unadulterated bull# when you hear it?

This flies in the face of the rules of science "the dose makes the poison"

Tired of Control Freaks

Here is a rebuttal of the Enstrom study.

· (i) Panel expertise
No one with special expertise in research on the health effects of
exposure to secondhand smoke was involved in the review of the
paper.22

(ii) Review process
· The British Medical Journal (BMJ) peer review process includes a less
intensive external review than other leading general medical journals.
· A more rigorous peer review is required,23 when there is conflict of
interest and public policy implications.24

(iii) Source of funding
· The BMJ has not revealed whether the reviewers were aware that the
paper was partially funded by the tobacco industry and that the authors
have a history of receiving tobacco industry funding.

3. EDITORIAL
(i) Editorial position
· The direction of the BMJ editorial position on secondhand smoke was
reversed without explanation. 25,26
(ii) Competing interests
· The Editor was misled by an ‘independent’ scientist who was later
found out to be a consultant for the tobacco industry. 27

www.ash.org.uk...

The Enstrom study is complete garbage.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Second hand smoke more toxic than mainstream smoke

www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...

An analysis of experiments funded by a tobacco company during the 1980s has shown that particulate matter in inhaled fresh sidestream smoke is three to four times as toxic per gram compared with mainstream cigarette smoke.7 Further analysis of the same tobacco industry data has shown that toxicity of sidestream smoke increases by a further two to four times as it ages.8 Therefore, the authors of this study conclude, if aged sidestream smoke is about three times more toxic than fresh sidestream smoke, and fresh sidestream smoke is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, then aged sidestream smoke is approximately 12 times more toxic than mainstream smoke. Although non-smokers inhale a much lesser mass of smoke than smokers, secondhand smoke appears to be substantially more toxic than mainstream smoke inhaled by smokers. This helps explain the relatively large biological effects of secondhand smoke.8

www.njgasp.org...

Thirdhand smoke (THS) is now recognized as a health hazard. Nicotine is the most abundant organic compound emitted during smoking, deposits on indoor surfaces and lasts up to months. THS is residual secondhand smoke that imbeds into upholstery, rugs, walls and other surfaces. New studies indicate that THS may be more dangerous than secondhand smoke, since it does not dissipate quickly, and continuously emits respirable particles long after smoking takes place. Learn more from an April 1, 2010 ABC interview with Dr. Jonathan Winikoff, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston.

The DOSE MAKES THE POISON

www.foodstandards.gov.au...

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Second hand smoke more toxic than mainstream smoke

www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...

An analysis of experiments funded by a tobacco company during the 1980s has shown that particulate matter in inhaled fresh sidestream smoke is three to four times as toxic per gram compared with mainstream cigarette smoke.7 Further analysis of the same tobacco industry data has shown that toxicity of sidestream smoke increases by a further two to four times as it ages.8 Therefore, the authors of this study conclude, if aged sidestream smoke is about three times more toxic than fresh sidestream smoke, and fresh sidestream smoke is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, then aged sidestream smoke is approximately 12 times more toxic than mainstream smoke. Although non-smokers inhale a much lesser mass of smoke than smokers, secondhand smoke appears to be substantially more toxic than mainstream smoke inhaled by smokers. This helps explain the relatively large biological effects of secondhand smoke.8

www.njgasp.org...

Thirdhand smoke (THS) is now recognized as a health hazard. Nicotine is the most abundant organic compound emitted during smoking, deposits on indoor surfaces and lasts up to months. THS is residual secondhand smoke that imbeds into upholstery, rugs, walls and other surfaces. New studies indicate that THS may be more dangerous than secondhand smoke, since it does not dissipate quickly, and continuously emits respirable particles long after smoking takes place. Learn more from an April 1, 2010 ABC interview with Dr. Jonathan Winikoff, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston.

The DOSE MAKES THE POISON

www.foodstandards.gov.au...

Tired of Control Freaks

You seriously need to just quit before you look like a total buffoon.

An analysis of experiments funded by a tobacco company during the 1980s has shown that particulate matter in inhaled fresh sidestream smoke is three to four times as toxic per gram compared with mainstream cigarette smoke.7

Maybe you missed the PER GRAM part. Second hand smoke is more toxic PER GRAM, first hand smokers inhale MORE GRAMS. Please tell me English is not your first language.

Now to your dose makes the poison, please deal with the fact coc aine addicts will be fine using a dose that would kill me or you. How is that possible with your theory?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


And this is Enstrom's reply to his critics

www.sourcewatch.org...

BTW - the study was not LARGELY funded by the tobacco industry. Enstrom conducted the study almost 38 years when it was funded by the American Cancer Society. They pulled their funding when they realized that the results were not going to be what they wanted them to be. Enstrom at this point, accepted only $100,000 from Big Tobacco to finish the study and get it published.

Further, the editor of the British Medical Journal who published Enstroms paper is by no means a tobacco supporter.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

He resigned his teaching position to protest the university receiving tobacco money.

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk...

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Well - now you got it

More toxic per gram - that is the very essence of the "dose makes the poison".

non-smokers are much much less exposed to smoke than a smoke, even when the non-smoker is sitting in an enclosed room while the smoker is smoking.

So using phrases like second hand smoke is MORE toxic than mainstream smoke is really kind of meaningless isn't it? But every anti-tobacco campaigner out there is using that phrase.

Could this be an exaggerated scare tactic to demonize smokers?

As to why coc aine addicts can take increased dosages that would kill you and I. its called habitation and is one of the signs of addiction. It takes ever increasing dosages to achieve the same high. But make no mistake, while a small dosage of coc aine won't kill anyone, a high dose of coc aine will ultimately kill everyone. That is how overdose deaths occur. The addict continues increasing the dosage until he crosses over the limit.

Water is essential to survival - drink a gallon a day and its good for you. But people have died from drinking too much water. By this means, it is demonstrated that water is a poison at a sufficiently high dosage.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

And this is Enstrom's reply to his critics

www.sourcewatch.org...

BTW - the study was not LARGELY funded by the tobacco industry. Enstrom conducted the study almost 38 years when it was funded by the American Cancer Society. They pulled their funding when they realized that the results were not going to be what they wanted them to be.

How wrong can one person be in one day? Nowhere does that state they pulled their funding.

The ACS followed this cohort for 13 years and has used it for decades to make important findings on the relationship between active smoking and mortality.

He took a study designed to make findings on ACTIVE SMOKING, which 100% supported the position of the ACS that smoking causes cancer.

Enstrom at this point, accepted only $100,000 from Big Tobacco to finish the study and get it published.

He then took $150,000, two payments of $75,000, from the tobacco company for his hitpiece on PASSIVE SMOKING using data collected for an ACTIVE SMOKING only study.

Further, the editor of the British Medical Journal who published Enstroms paper is by no means a tobacco supporter.

No, but a controversial study might draw higher viewership and increase revenues!

He resigned his teaching position to protest the university receiving tobacco money.

Delusional much? He actually was mad his University was considering NOT receiving tobacco money.

First, the Regents of the University of California are now considering a University-wide ban on tobacco industry funding, as summarized in a January 26, 2007 Science news article [5]. Hopefully, this ban will never be implemented because it would have a chilling effect on academic freedom and would make virtually impossible the type of research that I published in my BMJ paper.

Everything you say is wrong, how do you get so much so wrong?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Well - now you got it

More toxic per gram - that is the very essence of the "dose makes the poison".

Wrong, again, big surprise. "Dose makes the poison" infers something that is normally healthy can become a poison at sufficient doses. Water, which is vital to survival, will kill you. Salt will kill you. Normal, needed, healthy substances become poisonous at some dose. As I have shown you, and you refuse to answer, coc aine addicts consume doses on a regular basis that will kill you, yet it does not kill them. Cocaine will have a MUCH larger effect on you or I per gram. You 100% know this is true, you just wont deal with this fact because it gets in the way of your dogma.

So using phrases like second hand smoke is MORE toxic than mainstream smoke is really kind of meaningless isn't it? But every anti-tobacco campaigner out there is using that phrase.

It's a proven fact. Is coc aine MORE toxic per gram to you than it is to a coc aine addict? Yes. I am glad we can end this stupid discussion and you can be wrong on the next mindless point you bring up.

As to why coc aine addicts can take increased dosages that would kill you and I. its called habitation and is one of the signs of addiction. It takes ever increasing dosages to achieve the same high. But make no mistake, while a small dosage of coc aine won't kill anyone, a high dose of coc aine will ultimately kill everyone. That is how overdose deaths occur. The addict continues increasing the dosage until he crosses over the limit.

Let's replace that with cigarettes. Follow the same logic, and PRESTO, just like magic we have LOWER doses of nicotine will have a GREATER effect on non smokers. And it is called habituation, and the rest of your statement shows you are clueless about drug overdoses, but wish to sound like you understand. An addict can overdose without increasing the dosage, one common factor is occasion setting.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Seriously, your knowledge about this entire subject is lightyears behind mine. Stop parroting garbage and learn some facts.