Replies

This is getting beyond absurd. Of course we all “know” smoking tobacco “causes lung cancer”, I mean we’ve had that line shoved in our face for how long now? Oh, for as long as the automobiles companies have know about benzo-a-pyrene, becoming informed of the “slight problem” they’d face soon, due to what was coming out the ass end of their cars. Yes the number one cause of many, lung included, cancers is this little unseen, untasteable, little chemical.

Anything that burns gives it off. We breath it in tobacco smoke. So I guess we get the most of it, perhaps, but by far the largest source is from burning fossil fuels. Not just gas cars? That’s right, got an oil furnase in your home? Whatever you do, don’t buy a home downwind from the big city airport. These people are SICK, and you my friend, are not hearing about it.

And while we all “know” that tobacco smoke is the worst thing since the invention of worst things, how about a few high notes, just for variety mind you. Asbestos workers who smoke have a 50% lower risk of lung cancer.
“Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma"

0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."

So that was shocking, how about this: We've all heard about the surgen generals report on smoking, but you haven't read it. In fact none of your friends have read it, you don't even know a doctor who has read it. What? Go ahead tell me that's not true. The Information Superhighway should have it, yes? Well yes it should have it, but it doesn't. (correction: In the last few months it has appeared, with more than a few “doctorings”) So has anyone read this great report on how bad smoking is for you? Yes a few people have read it. A lawyer did obtain a copy on microfilm from a small company in Alexandria Virginia. The same lawyer by the way who did an investigation on the government "truth" about aids. Turns out the surgen generals report is full of interesting facts. The first third of the report,about 100 pages deals with lab tests on mice, rats, geini pigs, dogs etc. Pumping very large quantities of smoke into these animals did not produce lung cancer. Before getting too excited about these experiments, however, we need to consider this: the largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did, and only a small percentage developed tumors. Painting high concentrations of tar all over various parts of their bodies didn't either. Hmm. The middle of the report, another 100+ pages is more revealing as to the way our government likes to do things. Tons of "facts", quotes from medical surveys are pointing to how hazardous smoking is. Fortunetly the bibliography is there. The bibliography was traced back and guess what was found out? The numbers have been "cooked" to produce the desired result. At first the lawyer thought he was coming accross some typos, then more typos. Wait a minute there are waay to many figures wrong to just be typos. The end of the report finishes up with some interesting tidbits like Dolls own finding that ( Doll is one of the most anti of anti-smoking doctors out there!) inhalers live longer than non-inhalers. Whoops! So are you still wondering why very few people have read the report?

The Austrailian study:
Another very good example of this sort of attitude was the Australian government's health survey (1989-90 National Health Survey Lifestyle and Health Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 4366.0, Ian Castles, Australian Statistician). We tend to think of the Australians as manly and tough, a view put across in such amusing films as Crocodile Dundee, but about smoking they have become almost Kalifornian in their alarm about the habit. But then, we once thought the Americans were manly and tough.

Yet, in this government survey, in which there was no question of finance by an interested parties, or any pro-smoking bias, and in which 22,000 families were studied, it came over quite clearly, that smokers were on the whole, in better health than non-smokers, and definitely better than ex-smokers.

Throid Cancer:
Cigarette smokers had a decreased risk of statistical significance compared to nonsmokers (30% reduction)
(Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996 Jun;5(6):425-31 (ISSN: 1055-9965)

Endometrical Cancer:
Moreover, women who smoke may have a reduced risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, hyperemesis gravidarum, and benign breast disease. (40-60%)
(Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990 Feb;162(2):502-14 (ISSN: 0002-9378)

Bladder Cancer:
Coffee drinkers are at elevated risk, however coffee drinkers who smoke have a lower risk!
(Cancer Lett 1988 Jul;41(1):45-52 (ISSN: 0304-3835)

Breast Cancer:
The researchers were surprised by the results. "We found that among women who carried a mutation in one of these genes, cigarette smoking did have an effect in reducing their risk of developing breast cancer," said Dr. Caryn Lerman of the Lombardi Cancer Center. Many studies have found a reduction of nearly 45% for women who smoke filter cigarettes and over 65% for those who smoke non-filters.

Evidence is growing that cigarette smoking and nicotine may prevent or ameliorate Parkinson's disease, and could do so in Alzheimer's dementia
(PMID: 8746297, UI: 96362361 )

... smokes for thought.