Nymox's TobacAlert Product Attracts World-Wide Attention (HAVE YOU BEEN EXPOSED TO 2ND HAND SMOKE??)

MAYWOOD, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 5, 2004--Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation (NASDAQ: NYMX - News) announced today that its TobacAlert(TM) product has garnered attention from the press and news services around the world, including in the U.S., Great Britain, France, Italy and Canada, following a January 19, 2004 story about TobacAlert(TM) by Avram Goldstein in the Washington Post and a subsequent January 25 story by Charles Laurence in the Sunday Telegraph in London. TobacAlert(TM) offers concerned individuals an accurate and cost-effective method of determining whether a person has been exposed to second-hand smoke. TobacAlert(TM) is an easy to use urine test that can be done at home and requires no instruments to use.

Both stories highlighted TobacAlert(TM)'s ability to detect second-hand smoke exposure. The reporter for the Telegraph confirmed the effectiveness of the test by testing himself after two hours in a smoky New York cigar club - the result: positive for second-hand smoke exposure.

"TobacAlert(TM) allows people to get answers about possible second-hand smoke exposure quickly, accurately and easily," said Dr. Michael Munzar of Nymox. "With the high level of concern around the world about second-hand smoke, we are delighted to see the interest in a revolutionary new product like TobacAlert(TM)."

TobacAlert(TM) retails for a suggested retail price of $14.99 and is available in selected CVS Pharmacies and on-line through CVS at www.cvs.com and through drugstore.com at www.drugstore.com . More information about ToabacAlert(TM) is available at www.tobacalert.com .

More information about Nymox is available at www.nymox.com, email: info@nymox.com, or 800-936-9669.

This press release contains certain "forward-looking statements" as defined in the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and the actual results and future events could differ materially from management's current expectations. Such factors are detailed from time to time in Nymox's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation Dr. Michael Munzar, 1-800-93NYMOX www.nymox.com or Sitrick & Company Lew Phelps, 310-788-2850, ext. 4103

I had not seen this. I did a search on the product name and found many news "stories" that all read the same. So I assume it is a mass press release paid for by the anti's as they do. I did find something that made me want to post. This statement here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3996062/

"If you argue in court that secondhand smoke doesn't kill, they will laugh you out of court," said James L. Repace, a Beltsville-based air quality expert who has participated in dozens of battles nationwide over smoking restrictions. Repace said home tests could inspire more suits. "Once people find out they are exposed in such graphic terms, they get upset," he said.

I had not realized that the anti's had this much confidence in working our judicial system. Sort of got my attention. Anyone for encouraging the study of statistics and methodology to our children. I guess I had the mistaken belief that our courts would recognize bad science.

Yes. That seems to be the case. I just looked at some of his home pages and was struck by the way they were presented. He calls himself a health physicist. He is a major anti. Courts are his realm. I can't imagine the corruption that must be involved. The money coming from your pocket of course. He did work for the epa. Those guys have a good track record. We sure can not call out current world over regulated. I suppose these things need to run there course. Looking at history, these movements die because they have the seeds of their own destruction within them. In this case truth. Also, these movements die because they become so silly and strange that's its impossible to follow their rules. People will just start ignoring it like those silly laws you see on web pages that are two hundred years old but still on the books. I guess they just need to be exposed and publically humiliated for their exaggerations. Not much hope now with the national and international media mum. Another teapot dome scandel I guess. It won't die until the moment of its death. Sarcasm tag here and there. .

We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.
So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names.
Assume you start with an appetizer, then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season, and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.
You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various "carcinogens" (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals), including:
* hydrazines (mushroom soup);
* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad),
* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);
* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);
* furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);
* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);
* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).
Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).
And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your l00-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins - popularly known as "poisons." These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.
Now here is the good news: these foods are safe.
Four observations are relevant here:
* When it comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.
* While you probably associate the word "carcinogen" with nasty-sounding synthetic chemicals like PCBs and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.
* The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural "carcinogens."
* While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.
If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk ("so let's ban it just in case"), we'd have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation's obesity problem!)
The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.
So the next time you hear a self-appointed "consumer advocate" fret about the man-made "carcinogen du jour" and demand the government step in and "protect" us - remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.
Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!
Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health
Full Story:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/14334.htm
Mike Dore, Secy.
Delaware United Smokers Association
http://www.deusa.org

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.