Posted on 09/22/2009 3:38:49 PM PDT by TennesseeGirl
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Could it be good news for smokers? Current and past-smokers with coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral artery disease have less than half the cardiovascular mortality than never-smokers, the initial findings from a new study suggest.
But don't be so quick to tell your patients to light up: After accounting for potential confounders, the association was not statistically significant.
"The relationship between smoking habit and outcome in patients with established arterial disease remains controversial," Dr. M. Monreal, of Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues write in the September issue of the European Journal of Internal Medicine.
"Some studies have found that smoking may be associated with a better outcome among patients with acute coronary disease," they note. "As for patients with cerebrovascular disease or peripheral artery disease, there is little information on the influence of smoking on outcome."
...Compared to never-smokers, current and past-smokers were younger, more often male, and more likely to have chronic lung disease. Diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were less common in current- and past-smokers. Excerpted.
(Excerpt) Read more at rtmagazine.com ...
Pretty obvious this study wasn't done in the USA.
Get OUT!
And we will never see this in the SRM either.
Perhaps because they weigh less?
Money quote.
Not bragging but have been smoking for over 50 years and just recently developed unstable angina...have had about 5 attacks in the last year...NTG takes care of it....Lung cancer does not run in the family...I think genetics predisposition has a lot to do with cancers...With my family history, it G I cancers.....
Help save Social Security and defeat National Health Care, Light up!!
LOL I am doing my part, even roll my own....
Those stats should scare the crap out of anyone
Wonder if it's occurred to anyone that there might be a correlation between the smoking hysterics and global warming hoax????
Same tactics, different subject....
Anecdotal, of course, but here goes...
My beloved husband has no bad habits. Doesn’t drink, never smoked, etc. He now has Parkinson’s.
I have been smoking for well over 40 years... rarely have colds, flu, or other minor illnesses. Second hand smoke doesn’t seem to be very effective against Parkinson’s, I guess.
Perhaps because they weigh less?
Exactly we know both of those diseases are affected by weight and smokers burn more calories due to the nicotine in their bodies.
Of course lets not bring Lung Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, or the plethora of other diseases where the increased risk of developing due to smoking is hundreds of times that of the non smoker into the conversation.
I’m 59, have smoked for 45 years. I have so much nicotine in my system, cancer cells can’t survive. “cept for age related aches and pains, am truly healthy.
smoke’en if you got’em.
I restarted smoking one day when they first started outlawing smoking in restaurants somewhere - glad I did because I dont believe 90% of the antismoking propaganda.
Sure, if you smoke too much (I average 5 a day), it wont be healthy but I know lots of pack a day people who have far less problems than the teatotallers.
“Of course lets not bring Lung Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, or the plethora of other diseases where the increased risk of developing due to smoking is hundreds of times that of the non smoker “
That simply is not true.
Pancreatic, colon, and breast cancer deaths are lower among smokers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brimelow1.html
Here’s another little article to stimulate conversation.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford’s cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality “can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking.” Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn’t!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
“Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself”.
There’s more at the link.
very interesting - I think I once read that diesel fumes contain ultra small particles that resist cleansing by the lungs just like asbestos.
Just watch a heavy smoker dying and listen to them gasping for their last breath. That’s a lesson you won’t forget.
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.