Tobacco and the Health Fascists

reply to post by Pardon?


Pardon?

Seeing as how your run a children's respiratory clinic and all, maybe you would like to explains this multigenerational study on children who are exposed to second hand smoke

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (peer-reviewed and published)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children. There is a need for further studies with a prospective design to certify the causal direction of this association. Smoking habits and atopic disorder in parents should not be considered independent variables in epidemiological studies of the connection between exposure to tobacco smoke and atopy in children.

But of course, a study showing that children exposes to second hand smoke get less asthma and less atopy would be meaningless unless there was some proof of the biological mechanism by which that happens:

www.jimmunol.org...

These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. To our knowledge this is the first direct evidence that nicotine modulates allergic responses.

And, leaving the world of epidimiology and laboratory science, perhaps you could provide an explanation for why the incidence of childhood asthma has INCREASED 800 % since the 1960s, in lock step with the decrease in exposure to second hand smoke. This increase seems to be developing ONLY in countries where anti-smoking is dominant and children are not normally exposed to smoke.

The rising trends in asthma and allergic disease

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...;jsessionid=A9F5494421F0759A9BF8A93947F8609E.d04t02?deniedAccessCustomi sedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

en.wikipedia.org...

Rates of asthma have increased significantly between the 1960s and 2008[7][8] with it being recognized as a major public health problem since the 1970s.[5] Some 9% of US children had asthma in 2001, compared with just 3.6% in 1980. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that some 10% of the Swiss population have asthma as of 2007, compared with 2% some 25–30 years ago.[9] In the United States the age-adjusted prevalence of asthma increased from 7.3 to 8.2 percent during the years 2001 through 2009 .[10]

Now I don't know what is going on at your little clinic but I do know what is going on in the world. The increase in prevelance of both childhood asthma and allergies is directly correlated with the increase of anti-smoking in any particular country.

So the general concensus is - if you don't know what causes any particular disease, blame it on smoking. And when the child is NOT exposed to smoking, blame it on smoking anyway.

But no one yet wishes to address the issue. In the REAL world (not your little clinic) the incidence of childhood asthma and allergies is going UP while the smoking rate is going DOWN.

Please feel free to ignore the FACTS. Anti-smokers always do because their opinions are based on faith, not evidence.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Unity_99
I believe that growing organic food, fruit, and tobacco is a good thing. Most of the cancers and health problems occur because of the radiation in the fertilizer, however, there was also some talk of the atmospheric tests and nuclear tests down that may have fallen out in fertile ground. I'm sure they cross all their T's and dot all their I's when they plan things, so they serve multi purposes.

I am not saying tobacco is good from the point of view of your blood pressure, vascular system and heart, but that it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as what is occurring now, especially in North America, versus say Japan's rates. And also, tylenol is a killer too.

So....not promoting it. Myself I'm trying esmokes. But I did think of possibly growing my own organic tobacco as well, for both methods. But will see how lowering the amount goes over time too.

Forcing anything, claiming ownership of the resources of this planet like nazi's should never be allowed to drip drip drip into a system. We are equally co-owners of the resources of this planet.

I agree with you as regards to organic tobacco, the tailor made ciggys. actually have rice in them as a filler. The Tobacco is turned to a mush and then sprayed with nicotine and many more chemicals. Its the only way the rolling machines can roll them. Rice is a known carcinogen when burnt. The Tobacco manufacturers are not clean either. I think all the Big corporations are a big worry to the state of this planet.

Do you have links for that info? I've never heard of rice being used as filler or tobacco being turned to mush then sprayed with nicotine. Nicotine can be very toxic so I doubt the tobacco is sprayed with it because the tobacco already contains enough nicotine.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Thank you for your patronising comments about my "little clinic".
It's a supra-regional neonatal/paediatric respiratory centre with a catchment area of nearly 4 million people, hardly "little".

I would also suggest that I have considerably more experience and knowledge than most when it comes to childhood asthma rather than just scouring for individual studies on the internet to try to prove a point.

Whilst it's certainly true that asthma is on the increase globally (various genetic, social and environmental factors are involved) what I said about a child being more likely to develop asthma when living in a smoker's home is absolute FACT. In truth, it's about 3 times more prevalent.
pediatrics.aappublications.org...
You may also wish to read the studies printed below the abstract itself too.

The study you've cited to "prove" the biological process where nicotine suppresses allergic responses would hold more credence if there was only nicotine in tobacco smoke. However, this is not the case is it?
Tobacco smoke is a known trigger factor for asthma attacks, FACT.
journals.lww.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.sciencedirect.com...

Since the smoking ban in public places was introduced there has also been a significant decrease in the number of asthma related hospital admissions in the UK.
www.theguardian.com...
pediatrics.aappublications.org...
(By the way, have you ever seen a child having an asthma attack? I mean with severe bronchospasm rather than just pronounced wheezing?)

So please try to patronise me as much as you wish but I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.
Come and work with my friends at the resp clinic for a few weeks and talk to the medical staff, parents and children there about smoking and asthma rather than sitting on your high-horse pretending that tobacco does no harm to them.
I dare you.

reply to post by Pardon?


patranize YOU - you have just accused smokers of being mass child abusers!

And you still have NOT answered the question!

Please, from the wealth of your experience, in what is now a MASSIVE clinic, explain the HUGE increase in childhood asthma and allergies that has occurred since the 1960s, that, IN FACT, is occuring ONLY in those countries where ANTI-SMOKING dominates?

Bring forward a hundred epidimiological studies, that in the totality of its wieght, still is only sufficient for the Surgeon General, to INFER that the evidence is ONLY suggestive of being causal. (remember, epidimiology is a social science, and not a medical one).

Bring forward more and more anti-smoking propaganda about how smoking bans are GOOD for chilluns, if you like.

Bring forward more studies like the Scottish and English asthma miracle the studies that show that asthma admissions to hospitals are dropping AFTER the smoking bans BUT ONLY is direct contraction of the HOSPITAL EPISODE STATISTICS

www.hscic.gov.uk... Look for the code J45

But you can see the actual statistics here

velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.ca...

and the announcement by Asthma UK

www.bbc.co.uk...

"However, it seems that at a strategic level some complacency has crept in - that asthma has somehow been 'fixed' and priorities have now changed.

"This is borne out by the fact there has been no noticeable change in the unacceptably high emergency hospital admissions for children and young people with asthma in the last decade."

(of course, they are getting complacent, the smoking bans have been implemented, Asthma is cured!!!!)

So it would seem that anti-smokers used the normal up-and-down trend of asthma admissions from year to year that occurs naturally to proclaim that smoking bans "work", just like they did with heart attacks. Just google the Helena Heart Miracle. and other similar studies showing that these types of studies made the Times list for "worst junk science ever"

And after you have done all of that manipulation - answer the question:

Why has the incidence of childhood asthma been steadily increasing since the 1960s BUT only in those countries where an anti-smoking attitude prevails?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'm almost certain that I agreed with you about the rise in asthma and that it's also due to genetic, social and environmental factors.
Did you miss that sentence?

I disagree with your statement that it's only increasing in anti-smoking countries too. That's incorrect.
India is just one example of where you're very wrong.
Here's a graph showing the steady increase in the incidence of asthma from 1980 to 1996.
The first smoking ban did not come into force until 2007 and that didn't exactly take off.
upload.wikimedia.org...

As for the code ICD J45, that is the coding for asthma as a whole, not just for admissions.
Have a look a this page for a list of sub-codes
www.icd10data.com...
So by typing in just J45 you're not going to get any particularly specific stats are you? You're going to get all visits to a hospital pertaining to asthma regardless whether they were emergencies or just normal follow-ups. Unsurprisingly the total will remain reasonably steady.

However, the study about the reduction in emergency visits was for England.
The statement from Asthma UK and the BBC report was for Scotland, not the UK as a whole. Also that was about standards of care for asthma, nothing to do with any smoking ban.

If you like to quote Asthma UK here's what they say about smoking
www.asthma.org.uk...

I can't really comment on the Helena business as I don't really know much about it and it's got absolutely nothing to do with asthma anyway other than a conspiracy you're trying to tie in with it.


So it seems like it's not really been me who's doing the manipulation here is it?

Here's one little experiment you may wish to try.
Find a child with asthma and sit him or her in a room with you whilst you smoke.
See what happens.
(Please don't do this).

reply to post by Pardon?


I would never ever in a million years, take the risk of harming a child. I am a smoker, NOT a monster, irrespective of what you say about smokers.

Follow the links within the one I provided. The English stats hold true. There was NO asthma miracle in either England or Scotland. There was great examples of "science for sale" though.

The increase in childhood asthma is completely unrelated to smoking bans. It is correlated to the anti-smoking campaigns. of which India is included, since the 1960s I might add. Google it!

Here is the deal. this is what is happening in the real world. Not the world of anti-smoking fantasies.

Childhood asthma has been increasing since the 1960s. This is a fact as you have already admitted. The increase is occurring in developed countries with anti-smoking campaigns dating back to the 60s. It is NOT occurring in countries where anti-smoking is a new phenomena.

Until the mid-1970s or so - antismoking out and out blamed smokers for childhood asthma.

www.epa.gov...

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children exposed to high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those whose mothers smoke, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects. Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms.

Except a funny thing happened... the incidence of childhood asthma kept rising! Even in the face of the fact that an estimated 82 % of homes are non-smoking. Even in the face of the dramatic decrease in the rate of smoking in the population.

So the anti-smoking story changed. It was admitted that exposure to second-hand smoke wasn't the cause of asthma but it was the "biggest trigger" for asthma attack." And that attacks of asthma were "worse" when triggered by second hand smoke.

Now can second hand smoke trigger an asthma attack - sure it can. Its a particulate and can irritate an overly-sensitive airway. But so can a thousand other sources!

When you carried out your informal survey of children suffering asthma attacks and determined that smokig caused the "worst" attacks...did you check to see if the children came from poor neighbourhoods. Aren't smokers poorer than average? Don't they predominate in poor neighbourhoods. Aren't the children exposed to the particulate busy vehicle routes usually located in poorer neighbourhoods. Aren't those apartment buildings also the ones most likely to be infested with cockroachs. And isn't cockroach poop the b8ggest asthma trigger?

www.aafa.org...

In the 1970s, studies made it clear that patients with cockroach allergies develop acute asthma attacks. The attacks occur after inhaling cockroach allergens and last for hours. Asthma has steadily increased over the past 30 years. It is the most common chronic disease of childhood. Now we know that the frequent hospital admissions of inner-city children with asthma often is directly related to their contact with cockroach allergens—the substances that cause allergies. From 23 percent to 60 percent of urban residents with asthma are sensitive to the cockroach allergen.

And aren't those same kids living in buildings likely to be infested with mould and fungi?

www.asthma.org.uk...

Moulds release tiny seeds called spores into the air, which can trigger asthma symptoms in some people. Spores are released when there is a sudden rise in temperature in a moist environment, such as when central heating is turned on in a damp house, or wet clothes are dried next to a fireplace.

And aren't these the same kids living in crowded conditions and more likely to get respiratory ailments of all kinds? And isn't the common cold a trigger for asthma attacks.

So tell me - just how do you tell exactly what the CAUSE of each individual asthma attack? If the kids parents are smokers, you automatically ASSUME that the CAUSE of the attack is the second-hand smoke and pretend like there aren't multiple potential causes?

And then tell me this - are you more interested in finding out what CAUSES asthma and helping these children? Or is the real reason for your post to carry anti-smokers water?

And how much money does your facility get from anti-smoking organizations like the lung society. In short - who pays your salary sweetie?

As for smoking and asthma - it was considered therapeutic to smoke tobacco to relieve asthma for a 100 years before you and your fanatical brethren were ever borne. And many smokers still swear by it.

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

reply to post by Pardon?


I would never ever in a million years, take the risk of harming a child. I am a smoker, NOT a monster, irrespective of what you say about smokers.

Follow the links within the one I provided. The English stats hold true. There was NO asthma miracle in either England or Scotland. There was great examples of "science for sale" though.

The increase in childhood asthma is completely unrelated to smoking bans. It is correlated to the anti-smoking campaigns. of which India is included, since the 1960s I might add. Google it!

Here is the deal. this is what is happening in the real world. Not the world of anti-smoking fantasies.

Childhood asthma has been increasing since the 1960s. This is a fact as you have already admitted. The increase is occurring in developed countries with anti-smoking campaigns dating back to the 60s. It is NOT occurring in countries where anti-smoking is a new phenomena.

Until the mid-1970s or so - antismoking out and out blamed smokers for childhood asthma.

www.epa.gov...

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children exposed to high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those whose mothers smoke, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects. Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms.

Except a funny thing happened... the incidence of childhood asthma kept rising! Even in the face of the fact that an estimated 82 % of homes are non-smoking. Even in the face of the dramatic decrease in the rate of smoking in the population.

So the anti-smoking story changed. It was admitted that exposure to second-hand smoke wasn't the cause of asthma but it was the "biggest trigger" for asthma attack." And that attacks of asthma were "worse" when triggered by second hand smoke.

Now can second hand smoke trigger an asthma attack - sure it can. Its a particulate and can irritate an overly-sensitive airway. But so can a thousand other sources!

When you carried out your informal survey of children suffering asthma attacks and determined that smokig caused the "worst" attacks...did you check to see if the children came from poor neighbourhoods. Aren't smokers poorer than average? Don't they predominate in poor neighbourhoods. Aren't the children exposed to the particulate busy vehicle routes usually located in poorer neighbourhoods. Aren't those apartment buildings also the ones most likely to be infested with cockroachs. And isn't cockroach poop the b8ggest asthma trigger?

www.aafa.org...

In the 1970s, studies made it clear that patients with cockroach allergies develop acute asthma attacks. The attacks occur after inhaling cockroach allergens and last for hours. Asthma has steadily increased over the past 30 years. It is the most common chronic disease of childhood. Now we know that the frequent hospital admissions of inner-city children with asthma often is directly related to their contact with cockroach allergens—the substances that cause allergies. From 23 percent to 60 percent of urban residents with asthma are sensitive to the cockroach allergen.

And aren't those same kids living in buildings likely to be infested with mould and fungi?

www.asthma.org.uk...

Moulds release tiny seeds called spores into the air, which can trigger asthma symptoms in some people. Spores are released when there is a sudden rise in temperature in a moist environment, such as when central heating is turned on in a damp house, or wet clothes are dried next to a fireplace.

And aren't these the same kids living in crowded conditions and more likely to get respiratory ailments of all kinds? And isn't the common cold a trigger for asthma attacks.

So tell me - just how do you tell exactly what the CAUSE of each individual asthma attack? If the kids parents are smokers, you automatically ASSUME that the CAUSE of the attack is the second-hand smoke and pretend like there aren't multiple potential causes?

And then tell me this - are you more interested in finding out what CAUSES asthma and helping these children? Or is the real reason for your post to carry anti-smokers water?

And how much money does your facility get from anti-smoking organizations like the lung society. In short - who pays your salary sweetie?

As for smoking and asthma - it was considered therapeutic to smoke tobacco to relieve asthma for a 100 years before you and your fanatical brethren were ever borne. And many smokers still swear by it.

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

So Pardon?

What is your interest in this thread. Are you really interested in what is really crippling these children? Because as long as second-hand smoke is blamed, that is where the research dollars are going!

Anti-smokers have directed billions to blaming smoking and smokers for the suffering of these children. And the toll in disease and suffering keeps going up and up! And the children keep suffering!

And just exactly how did smoking bans in bars where children are not allowed to enter help "the children" anyway.

I simply cannot recall a situation where I had to kick an asthmatic child out of my way when I wanted to fetch another drink?

So what is your motivation anyway - keep kicking smokers and branding them as disease causing lepers with absolutely no consideration for sick children? To keep repeating the message that smoking is bad!

Are the children the ones who will bear the price for your zealous hatred of smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks

Another thing about smoking and the medical professionals current way of thinking is if you have any kind of respiratory or circulatory problems and you smoke they will attribute your ailment to smoking and will not look any further for other possible causes.

My experience with doctors in the past 10 years makes me believe many are quacks and just write scripts for whatever pills are pushed for your given set of symptoms regardless if you need them and then give you a fat bill.

Originally posted by jrod
Another thing about smoking and the medical thinking. If you have any kind of respiratory or circulatory problems and you smoke they will attribute your ailment to smoking and will not look any further for other possible causes.

My experience with doctors in the past 10 years makes me believe many are quacks and just write scripts that you may or may not need and bill you for it.

This is very true, I have personally witnessed this. The doctors seem to make it your fault if they can't figure out what is causing it. It is a scapegoat tactic that many use up here. The breakdown of elastins in the lungs cause many problems, if you do not consume enough of these elastin binding proteins, it can cause problems. If you eat the wrong selections of food chemistry it can also cause them to be unutilized. I still have a lot of studying on Emphysema before I can tell people how to fix the problem.

Originally posted by kimish

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Unity_99
I believe that growing organic food, fruit, and tobacco is a good thing. Most of the cancers and health problems occur because of the radiation in the fertilizer, however, there was also some talk of the atmospheric tests and nuclear tests down that may have fallen out in fertile ground. I'm sure they cross all their T's and dot all their I's when they plan things, so they serve multi purposes.

I am not saying tobacco is good from the point of view of your blood pressure, vascular system and heart, but that it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as what is occurring now, especially in North America, versus say Japan's rates. And also, tylenol is a killer too.

So....not promoting it. Myself I'm trying esmokes. But I did think of possibly growing my own organic tobacco as well, for both methods. But will see how lowering the amount goes over time too.

Forcing anything, claiming ownership of the resources of this planet like nazi's should never be allowed to drip drip drip into a system. We are equally co-owners of the resources of this planet.

I agree with you as regards to organic tobacco, the tailor made ciggys. actually have rice in them as a filler. The Tobacco is turned to a mush and then sprayed with nicotine and many more chemicals. Its the only way the rolling machines can roll them. Rice is a known carcinogen when burnt. The Tobacco manufacturers are not clean either. I think all the Big corporations are a big worry to the state of this planet.

Do you have links for that info? I've never heard of rice being used as filler or tobacco being turned to mush then sprayed with nicotine. Nicotine can be very toxic so I doubt the tobacco is sprayed with it because the tobacco already contains enough nicotine.

Commercial leaf after it is processed contains very little nicotine, "Nicotinus Virginius" the real tobacco is grown, to increase the nicotine content. After its processed to the cardboard type wet mush, then dried for the rolling machines, its sprayed on with other additives, if it wasn't it would go mouldy. Do a google "rice and tobacco" should bring it up. Tobacco

reply to post by Pardon?


It's impossible to argue with Control Freak. I have destroyed every argument he has ever presented and he keeps chugging along. He thinks smoking doesn't cause any cancer whatsoever. Seriously, he must be employed by tobacco companies.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Please, from the wealth of your experience, in what is now a MASSIVE clinic, explain the HUGE increase in childhood asthma and allergies that has occurred since the 1960s, that, IN FACT, is occuring ONLY in those countries where ANTI-SMOKING dominates?

Except, you're wrong, like you always are.

Because of a sharp increase in cigarette sales in the last 30 years

Specialists estimate that the number of asthma cases in China has risen by 40% in the past 5 years

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.thelancet.com...(06)69267-2/fulltext

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Except, you're wrong, like you always are. Because of a sharp increase in cigarette sales in the last 30 years Specialists estimate that the number of asthma cases in China has risen by 40% in the past 5 years

INCREDIBLE!!! And you knock 'Tired of Control Freaks' whose lucid arguments are more than worthy while
bringing up China whose air is so bad that it is more than bad - it gets close to being un-breathable -
And is this air that way from second hand smoke from cigarettes? NO - it un-breathable from very heavy amounts
of industrial pollution - But why don't you blame asthma and every other breathing problem on cigarettes?
You just did! You see that's why I started this post - not to praise tobacco or advocate its use but rather to
expose hypocrisy and show how hypocrites and liars, such as the Temperance movement which blamed every ill
in the world on alcohol and created Prohibition and fueled the rise of organized crime big time, can screw-up
the world, makes thing worse for the people of the world and almost always do more harm than good. Sure
alcohol was killing a lot people back then and probably still is to this day but that was not then nor is it now
the fault of alcohol but of its misuse. Same 'might' be true about tobacco but the anti-smokers have so demonized tobacco that we will never know - they are following the same paradigm of the temperance zealots
of a hundred years ago who would tell stories of those who drank themselves to death, or went insane, etc., etc.
And so all of the US had to do without drinking alcohol until the real harm these do-gooding devils was exposed
and temperance was repealed. I too am TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS!

PS: Latest research shows moderate drinkers to be healthier than non-drinkers - Where are those anti-alcohol temperance people now? - Right they are either at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or now work for the
anti-tobacco cartels!

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I would never ever in a million years, take the risk of harming a child. I am a smoker, NOT a monster, irrespective of what you say about smokers.

So you admit that smoking is bad for asthmatics then?

Ah, now I see where you coming from.
It's a typical tactic of shills to try to deflect and accuse their detractors of being shills.
You ARE a shill for tobacco right? You really have to be as you're following their mantra almost word for word.

From now on you shall be referred to as Philip Morris.

To make things clear, the respiratory centre I used to work for is NHS funded. We also used to happily accept charitable funding, mainly for expensive equipment. We had a protocol of not participating in any drug trials as we felt this would not be beneficial to our patients as we only wished to use thoroughly tested therapy regimes.
My one and only reason for working there was to help children and their parents.
Naturally I received a salary for which I felt I was entitled but other than the standard NHS contract there was no other caveat I was held to.
As well as working in the clinic I also was part of the respiratory crash team so I've dealt with hundreds of cases of children in severe respiratory distress due to asthma attacks.

What experience with asthmatics do you have?
I'm guessing around none whatsoever.

You're just a typical internet-pseudomedic who plucks studies out to try to prove his points without actually understanding them at all or being able to translate them into the real world of medicine.

As for the cause of asthma, I can certainly say without any reproach that tobacco smoking is a major contributory factor towards developing asthma in neonates especially when their mothers smoke in pregnancy. That has been proven by several studies. Look them up yourself.
The definitive cause of asthma is still guesswork with several factors involved in the genesis of asthma but to say that smoking isn't one of them is idiotic to say the least.
As for smoking being a major trigger for severe bronchospasm induced asthma attacks again their are plenty of studies confirming this.

The region I used to cover is relatively poor so most of the children I used to see were from average or below average salary households. Just to make it easy for you to understand as you seem to have some difficulty in grasping the simplest of concepts, new patients had to complete a full questionnaire which asked about all aspects of their current state of health, environment, family health etc etc.
It wasn't a case of there being just one question i.e Does anyone in your household smoke (that was one of the questions though).
So, when these questionnaires were reviewed we would sit down with the family and suggest changes they could make to improve their child's asthma. As a result of these questionnaires we consistently found a much higher incidence of asthma in smoker's homes even when status and conditions at home was taken into account.

As for mentioning that "it was considered therapeutic to smoke tobacco to relieve asthma for a 100 years before you and your fanatical brethren were ever borne".
I'm almost certain heroin and coc aine were available over the counter at the turn of the last century.
Didn't they also have x-ray machines in shoe shops to measure foot-sizes up until the late 1950's?

One thing you probably don't know is that inhaling tobacco smoke cause a mild bronchodilator effect which is very short lived. In asthmatics their bronchi are very labile (look it up). If the bronchi are dilated and then irritated by smoke the resulting brochospasm is very pronounced (see labile again).
So no, it's not just the fact that it's an irritant, it has a combined effect on the lungs and that's something that cockroach faeces doesn't have.

As for me being "fanatical" I suppose I am.
Not fanatical against smoking as I used to smoke and I'm happy to defend smokers' rights as long as they don't impinge on others.
I'm fanatical about children's health and especially that which is influenced by ignorance or falsehoods.

So hopefully, Mr Morris, I've answered some of your questions.

So, pray tell, Altria or BAT, which pays you the most?
Or are you working for the Chinese these days?

reply to post by Pardon?


my employment is completely unrelated to ANYTHING having to do with the production, manufacturing or sale of tobacco. I am just one very very pissed off smoker who is fed up with the lies of the anti-smoking puritans.

But your place of employment DOES accept anti-tobacco money for the purchase of expensive equipment and would be more than happy to support anti-smoking by making whatever statements are necessary to carry the anti-smoking message. After all, a lie told with good intention is all right isn't it.

So you do questionairs of the parents of all children - good. Now do you actually check for cockroach poop and the other contaminants I have mentioned? Is there actually any possible way of determining the exact reason an asthma attack occurred?

Funny that - the exact etiology of asthma is unknown but everyone is more than happy to blame smokers. Once the child has asthma, once the airway is hyper-sensitive and the attack occurs, although the CAUSE of the particular attack is unknown, everyone is still happy to blame smokers.

So what about the study I produced of two generations of swedes that shows that second-hand smoke was protective of both asthma and atopy and the actual science bench study showing that nicotine was the source of that protection? Does second-hand smoke not contain nicotine?

Funny how I predicted that it was mostly the poor kids that suffered from asthma. And I don't even work in the medical field

Now how do all your little studies about smoking and its affect on fetal lung development (money from anti-smoking to researchers, who are also happy to carry the anti-smoking message in exchange for cash) account for the fact that the incidence of asthma has INCREASED DRAMATICALLY while the smoking rate was DECREASING DRAMATICALLY?

Its quite obvious that child borne with the last 10 years while the majority have NOT been unexposed in the womb and are still getting asthma at higher rates than children who were borne in the 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. How do your little studies account for this little discrepancy?

My studies have results that match real world conditions. That children exposed to smoke at a young age get less asthma and, if they do get asthma, have less severe attacks and less allergies in general. This is supported by the fact that children in third world countries are exposed to smoke from cooking fires (nicotine in veggies) and don't get asthma at the rate our children do.

Is your head stuck so far up your ass that you can't see that the study results (using a small sample of the population) does not compare to what is happening in the real world? Have you worshipped for so long in the cult of anti-smoking than you have lost the ability to think?

How do you account for the fact that since mankind has lived and breathed smoke from the heating of their homes and cooking fires for millenia without asthma at the rates we are currently seeing?

Epidimiology is a soft study. Its not hard science. Its merely an association an so so easy to just stop counting when you reach the result you want, now isn't it?

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Oh and smoking being used to control asthma being history?

Sorry sweetie - still happening today! People have a way of discovering what works for them. I have read many stories of adult asthmatics throwing away their expensive inhalers and relying solely on light smoking to control their attacks. Google it!

Funny that - how the medical community always recommends that smokers give up smoking and stop being slave to Big Tobacco and start bring a slave to Big Pharma instead?

of course - they still use opium and heroin in medicine today (right after the puritans started the drug war and Big Pharma became the only legal source), they use leeches too, and aspirin instead of willow bark etc etc. Many of the medical practices that you dismiss as outdated are still in use today or are the basis for Big Pharma's products.

Tired of Control Freaks

Tired

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

So what is your motivation anyway - keep kicking smokers and branding them as disease causing lepers with absolutely no consideration for sick children? To keep repeating the message that smoking is bad!

What exactly is your stand point on smoking?.....are you saying that smoking is harmless, and causes no ill effects at all?

reply to post by Argyll


Absolutely Not - smoking, like almost every activity in life has risks.

However, anti-smoking is a billion dollar corporation, in whose best interest, it is best to magnify and exaggerate all risks regardless of the consequences. It largely funded by Big Pharma, who has a very incestuous relationship with the World Health Organization. Big Pharma also funds the non-governmental organizations who masquarade as charities through the Robert Wood Foundation.

For example, determining the exact cause of the HUGE increase in childhood asthma is very expensive and may not pay off in the long run. Funding anti-smoking and blaming asthma on smoking or second hand smoke exposure lays the foundation for raping smokers financially to the tune of billions.

Smokers don't cause children to get asthma and although second hand smoke may trigger asthma attacks because of its particulate content, there are also 100s of unseen particulate that are far far more concentrated. Like the exhaust from those diesal school buses that the children ride everyday. Haven't heard the medical community recommend that school buses should be gas-powered now have you?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Non-smokers are actually bad for big pharma as they tend to get less of the common respiratory ailments and therefore need less of the medications used to combat it. A non-smoker who does contract the usual colds/flu will recover faster with a lower likelihood of complications like infections and bronchitis that are treated with antibiotics which means less sales of treatments.

When I was a heavy smoker (for decades) I started to show signs of developing emphysema for which I was prescribed with inhalers (cortico steroids) but I no longer need them at all after stopping that nasty habit and my overall health is hugely improved. It took me many attempts at quitting before eventually succeeding but I'll never be free of the addiction. Just need to approach it like alcoholism - simply don't ever have the first one no matter how hard your brain tries to convince you that just one won't hurt.

Smokers are free to smoke and free to believe that it won't harm them but watching friends & relatives fade & die from lung cancer and emphysema will give them a new perspective on the reality - eventually and, if they're lucky, not too late.