Posted on 06/02/2004 4:43:14 AM PDT by Colosis
LONDON (Reuters) - Smoking destroys protective molecules in saliva and transforms it into a dangerous cocktail of chemicals that increases the risk of mouth cancer, scientists say.
"Cigarette smoke is not only damaging on its own, it can turn the body against itself," said Dr Rafi Nagler, of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel.
Saliva contains antioxidants, molecules that normally protect the body against cancer, but Nagler and his colleagues have discovered that cigarette smoke destroys the molecules and turns saliva into a dangerous compound.
"Our study shows that once exposed to cigarette smoke, our normally healthy saliva not only loses its beneficial qualities but it turns traitor and actually aids in destroying the cells of the mouth and oral cavity," he added.
In research reported in the British Journal of Cancer on Wednesday, Nagler and his team studied the impact of cigarette smoke on cancerous cells in the laboratory.
Half of the cells were exposed to saliva exposed to cigarette smoke and the other half just to the smoke. Cells exposed to the saliva mixture had more damage and it increased along with the time of exposure.
"Most people will find it very shocking that the mixture of saliva and smoke is actually more lethal to cells in the mouth than cigarette smoke alone," Nagler added in a statement.
Smoking and drinking are the leading causes of head and neck or oral cancers, which includes cancer of the lip, mouth, tongue, gums, larynx and pharynx. Nearly 400,000 new cases of the illness are diagnosed worldwide each year with the majority in developing countries. The five-year survival rates are less than 50 percent.
Nagler and his colleagues believe the research could open up new avenues to develop better treatments to prevent oral cancer.
"This insight into how mouth cancer can develop offers more reasons for smokers to try and quit," said Jean King, of Cancer Research UK, which publishes the journal. "People know the link with lung cancer and this research adds compelling evidence about the damage smoking can do to the mouth."
You can't answer that question, can you?
I didn't bother with the topic after I found out that you wanted me over there to get into a flame war with the posters that were attacking me. Thank you but no.
This topic is not about obesity. Please stay on topic.
Now you're trying the old, "Tell me what I said, and I'll tell you if you're right" argument. That might work with democrats, but not with me.
In case you didn't read what you posted, though, the statistics argument was used as proof of the connection of smoking to cervical cancer that YOU posted above.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. I'll amuse myself by classifying your posts...
until you answer some of the questions posted to you on this thread. That's gonna be tough, you're going to have to know what you posted--fair warning...
It's a smoking related question, but I guess you can't answer it...tell me...is YOUR ox getting gored?
Don't worry, the fact that empyhsema affects more smokers than nonsmokers should not spoil your fun. Not everyone who smokes gets emphysema. Maybe you won't be one of the unlucky ones. And even if you do get it, there are lots of options including oxygen tanks and lung transplants. You might even be eligible to get one of those special parking permits.
If they are all lies, then why doesn't the big tobacco money offer counter studies?
No. You questioned my integrity by saying I didn't post on obesity threads. I showed you that I did. Now you want me to answer questions about obesity on this thread. No.
Every time one of the big tobacco companies offers ANY research or statistical analysis to counter those arguments, then what happens--along comes the media and nanny-staters and anti-big-tobacco lawyers (millionaires all) to SCREAM that it's tainted by big tobacco money.
I've watched it, and I'm sick of it. Of course, the government hasn't enriched itself at the expense of smokers, nor the trial lawyers...of course, the government grant money goes to so-called scientists who have a clearly stated agenda to demonize tobacco smoking in whatever way they can, if not through real science then through statistics.
And I notice you also argue by changing the subject....not valid.
Absolutely correct. People who get heart disease, lung disorders and lung cancer are more likely to take up smoking. Tough luck for them. They not only have to suffer from all those diesases they have to live addicted to smokes.
Yes, and what about all those gazillion research dollars being spent on treatments for emphysema? /sarcasm.
You have forgotten to include the doctors that are getting rich off of all these misdiagnosed illnesses.
Great quote! That's a keeper for me.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Diseases are real. Causes of diseases, proved with statistics are bad science.
I'll tell you a doctor story, though. I was misdiagnosed at age 30 with emphysema by a doctor, because he knew I was a smoker. I'm fifty six, and I still smoke, and I do not have emphysema, confirmed by tests, which I take annually at my physical.
And I have taken care of a number of people with terminal lung cancer who never smoked and did not live with smokers.
You can't answer that question, can you?
You're fat, aren't you?
You have fired another blank. You and CSM are 0 for three today.
OH MY GOD!!! Chemicals in my spit!!!
I wonder what tomorrow's scare de jour will be?
How many smokers with terminal lung cancer have you taken care of?
I spit on this whole theory.
About the same number. Why? Is smoking invariably the cause of lung cancer? Most smokers don't get it...in fact, since you like statistics, smoking "causes" lung cancer in maybe 10% of smokers. Want to tell me about the smoking related deaths from cervical cancer, again?
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.