Everything Gives You Cancer

Whatever next? Never heard this one before:

The association between height and cancer has been observed for a long time, with taller people in general being at greater risk of developing the disease. A new study has looked into this link across a massive sample size of more than 5 million adults. Not only were they able to show that the association held over such large numbers, but they also calculated the increased risk for every extra 10 centimeters (4 inches) of height, claim the researchers.

They found that the risk of developing cancer in women increased by 18% for every extra 10 centimeters, while for men the risk rose by 11%…

Other studies have shown how people who have genetic dwarfism also have lower rates of cancer compared to the general population. The genetic mutation that makes them shorter is in the part of their DNA that codes for growth hormone receptors on their cells, meaning the cells don’t respond to the hormone in the body. Another piece of research has shown that mice genetically engineered to produce more or less growth hormone also have correspondingly higher and lower rates of cancer in correspondence with their with body size.

People are quite a lot taller than they were a century ago. Maybe the increase in cancer over the past century is entirely due to people getting taller?

We’ve already got Tobacco Control. And in Obesity Control we in effect have Width Control. So perhaps they’ll add Height Control next. Parents will be encouraged to feed their children as little as possible, or keep them in straitjackets to restrict their growth. Something like that. It will entail restrictions and bans. It always does.

One day they will find that everything causes cancer. Maybe they already have:

Everything gives you cancer

My first mistake came shortly after waking up. Toothpaste, I have since discovered, contains several compounds (fluorides and sodium lauryl sulphate among them) that are at least suspected carcinogens, as do shaving cream, soap and shampoo. Breakfast, as well as being the most important meal of the day, is also a cocktail of cancer-causing substances. Heterocyclicamines – highly mutagenic, possibly carcinogenic – are created by cooking or burning foods, and are commonly found in coffee and toast.

Aflatoxins, produced by naturally occurring fungi, are found in small concentrations in milk and cereal. Aflatoxin B1, the most deadly of all the aflatoxins, has been shown to cause cancer in mice, rats, hamsters, rainbow trout, ducks, marmosets (this is a partial list, by the way), tree shrews, guinea pigs and monkeys. Luckily, breakfast is not the most important meal of the day to me, so I’m happy to skip it.

It quickly becomes clear that total carcinogenic abstention is more difficult than it sounds. When that noted oncologist Joe Jackson first proclaimed that “Everything/Gives you cancer”, I think most people understood him to be speaking about all the good things in life -smoking and drinking and red meat and DDT-based pesticides. But a quick look at even a partial list of known human carcinogens proves that he may as well have been speaking literally.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Everything Gives You Cancer

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    “ … speaking about all the good things in life – smoking and drinking and red meat …”

    Oooh! He’ll be in trouble for that with all those obedient little Guardian-reading drones! Even if he has shoehorned in the obligatory, apologist anti-Big Three (smoking, drinking, diet) comment at the end. Naughty boy! Some journalists never learn!

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      ‘But because luck also appears to play a big part, cancer tends to inspire more superstition than any other disease.’

      Never a truer word said.

      Generally people put a lot of stock in the Witchfinders because they can’t fathom why cancer incidents have risen. Stevie warned us all about it in 1972 ;)

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    The excess fear of cancer is driving mass hysteria. It started with smoking, now extreme narcissism has extended it to all things. At least a recent study (I’m not sure how the anti’s censors allowed it out) shows that prostate cancer isn’t linked to smoking: “What Your Doctor Can’t Tell You: Risk Factors For Prostate Cancer Do Not Include Smoking” at http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-your-doctor-cant-tell-you-risk-factors-prostate-cancer-do-not-include-smoking-355284

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I saw that added to the new list of BS claims in the latest junk SG report and LMAO……….So after sex all your life our lil sex buddies lit one up too!

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    On another topic; Civil disobedience regarding the smoking ban is breaking out in Casper, Wyoming. See “Smoking continues at Casper bars despite ban” at http://trib.com/news/local/casper/smoking-continues-at-casper-bars-despite-ban/article_1896df00-a8af-5ae1-81d6-16ca4c7b8a35.html Hopefully this can inspire the start of a mass movement…

  4. junican says:

    Eventually, mass disobedience will scupper tobacco control. I don’t mean disobeying specific laws like not smoking in enclosed places especially. I mean ignoring stupid laws like car bans and ignoring PP. If whiskey was sold only in PP bottles with ghastly images and the name of the whiskey in small type on the bottle label, then drinkers of whiskey would soon educate others as to which ‘brand’ is best.
    It does not surprise me that Cameron’s Conservatives have gone ferile. That can only be because it does not matter. It does not matter whether conservative MPs are Conservatives or not. They just have to pretend to be Conservatives.

  5. Interesting the way they closed the main story to commenting immediately. Anyone notice whether that site censors discussions on less controversial studies?

    I *do* note one rather funny bit of information that escaped the article censors though: “the researchers obviously didn’t control for confounding factors, like smoking. ”

    The article writer, Josh Davis, is thus indicating that if smoking WERE considered, that some of the excess cancer risk might have been written off due to the effects of smoking. That’s what a “confounding factor” would mean in this context: something that contributed to and falsely accentuated the main finding.

    Which would ONLY be true if he believed or studies had indicated that SMOKING MAKES PEOPLE TALLER! Is this the message that Josh and IFL Science wants to send out to The Children? “Smoke up if you want to get on that basketball team kid! Yeah, it might increase your risk of cancer a bit, but hey, the gals love a nice tall guy!” (Yes, I know there are many gals who also play basketball, but generally adolescent females aren’t desperately worrying about being too short.)

    While reading about this, I also ran across an interesting note from someplace else:

    “According to Harcombe, a nutritionist, obesity researcher, and author of The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it? ‘The overall risk of dying was not even one person in a hundred over a 28 year study. If the death rate is very small, a possible slightly higher death rate in certain circumstances is still very small. It does not warrant a scare-tactic, 13% greater risk of dying headline? This is ‘science’ at its worst.’ ”

    Note that Harcombe excoriates the “scare headline” about a 13% increase because it’s referring to a “very small” death rate of 1 death in a hundred. I wonder what he would would have to say about the EPA’s 19% increase in the nonsmokers’ lung cancer rate of 1 person in 250? Of course the comparison becomes even more damning since the statistic Harcombe blasts probably actually met the “real science” standard of 95% for their 13% of 1 in 100, while the EPA had to cheat and lower the standard to 90% to justify their 19% of 1 in 250.

    “Ferile” eh? LOL! Good catch Jude! And great neologism Junican! PERFECT!

    :>
    MJM

  6. smokingscot says:

    That chucks up something that I find extremely odd.

    Mike Bloomberg’s a known short-arse with a stated height of 1.73m or 5′ 8″.

    And Adolf Hitler – sometimes referred to as the poisoned dwarf – was 1.75m or 5′ 9″.

    So two of the most viscous anti-smoking advocates had/have a natural immunisation to all forms of cancer, yet are the most scared of getting it from any external source.

    (Unfortunately it seems we’ll have Bloomberg strutting his stuff and slinging his bucks at any half-wit with a semi credible anti-smoking initiative for decades to come – his Mum died aged 102).

  7. Rose says:

    That’s an excellent article on the cancer hazards of every day life.

    Nitrates – which can be converted by the human body into carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds – are present in such seemingly inoffensive foods as celery, lettuce, kale and rhubarb

    Nitrosamines and Cancer – 2000

    “Nitrosamines occur commonly because their chemical precursors–amines and nitrosating agents–occur commonly, and the chemical reaction for nitrosamine formation is quite facile. Research on the prevention or reduction of nitrosamine formation has been productive, and most of the items shown in the table contain considerably lower amounts of nitrosamines than they did a few decades ago.”

    Nitrosamines in Food, Body Fluids, and Occupational Exposure
    “As indicated in the table, nitrosamines can form in the gastric juice of the human stomach. This is commonly referred to as endogenous nitrosation. Bacteria in the mouth chemically reduce nitrate, which is prevalent in many vegetables, to nitrite, which in turn can form nitrosating agents. Many foods contain amines that can react with nitrosating agents in the acidic stomach to form nitrosamines”
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150214104146/http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w00/nitrosamine.html

    Naturally when these hazards are discovered scientists try to fix the problem or at least reduce it.

    Retrofitting Tobacco Curing Barns
    “Recent research has shown that a class of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) compounds known as tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) may be formed in flue-cured tobacco leaves during the curing process. These compounds are not found in green (uncured) tobacco.

    Present research suggests that TSNAs are formed through a chemical reaction between nicotine and other compounds contained in the uncured leaf and various oxides of nitrogen (NOx) found in all combustion gases, regardless of the fuel used. Eliminating NOx compounds in the curing air by using a heat exchanger system has been shown capable of reducing TSNAs to undetectable levels in cured tobacco.”

    “To receive price support for tobacco grown in 2001 and thereafter, producers must retrofit, or change, all barns used to cure the crop to operate with indirect-fired curing systems.”

    “Research during the 2000 curing season has shown that converting from direct- to indirect-fired curing can reduce levels of TSNAs in cured leaf to below detectable levels (less than 0.1 part per million).”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20070406121827/http://www.cpes.peachnet.edu/tobacco/retrofitinfo.htm

    Nitrosamines in bacon: a case study of balancing risks

    “Nitrite has been used for centuries to preserve, color, and flavor meat. Today, about 10 billion pounds of cured meat products are produced annually, accounting for some one-tenth of the American food supply. Regulators became concerned about the safety of using nitrite in the early 1960s when studies showed the presence of carcinogenic nitrosamines in cured meat products”

    “Today there is little scientific support for the theory that nitrite is a direct carcinogen. To deal with the nitrosamine problem, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lowered the permissible amount of nitrite in cured meats to that level considered necessary for botulism protection.”

    Regulators, however, found it necessary to take additional steps with bacon because nitrosamines were found consistently in fried bacon samples. In addition to lowering the amount of nitrite that could be added to “pumped bacon” (cured by injecting liquid curing agents in the pork belly), USDA required the addition of nitrosamine inhibitors and began an intensive monitoring program in processing plants to ensure that fried bacon did not contain confirmable nitrosamines. The cooperative effort between Government and industry resulted in the virtual elimination of confirmable nitrosamines in pumped bacon by 1980.”
    http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424609/

    From the first link

    “About 1970 it was discovered that ascorbic acid inhibits nitrosamine formation. Consequently, the addition of 550 ppm of ascorbic acid is now required in the manufacture of cured meat in the U.S. Actually, most cured meat manufacturers add erythorbic acid (an isomer of ascorbic acid) rather than ascorbic acid. Although erythorbic acid has reduced vitamin C activity, it is as effective as ascorbic acid in inhibiting nitrosamine formation and is also cheaper than vitamin C. Another antioxidant, alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E), is added to some cured meats to inhibit nitrosamine formation. As a result of these strategies, there are now significantly lower levels of nitrosamines in fried bacon and other cured meats than there were some years ago.”

    Nitrosamine residues in foods
    “There is extensive data on the presence of nitrosamine residues in numerous types of foods.
    Their formation is attributable to several mechanisms, of which interaction with active chlorine compounds is a minor contributor.

    Nitrosamines may be formed by nitrosation of secondary amines by nitrite/nitrous acid, by reactions of N-chloramines with secondary amines, thermal/cooking processes, and undoubtedly others including biological processes.
    Detected nitrosamines have included N-nitrosodimethylamine(CAS 62-75-9), N-nitrosoproline (CAS 7519-39-0), N-nitrosopyrrolidine (CAS 930-55-2), and N-nitrosopiperidine (CAS 100-75-4).
    For example, numerous studies of reported nitrosamines are summarized in Table 2 (EPIC, 2004):

    Table 2 Nitrosamine Exposures from Foods
    Food Type One or more Combined Nitrosamines (ug/100g)
    Potato 0.015-1.44
    Cabbage 0.014-0.19
    Corn 0.002-0.83
    Tomato 0.187-0.27
    Fermented vegetables nd-0.50
    Cheese 0.02-9.75
    Milk 0.03-3.70
    Milk (sour) 0.08-11.9
    Flour 0.02-1.44
    Bacon nd to 6.50
    Beef up to 788
    Frankfurters up to 27
    Ham 0.1-79
    Salami up to 131
    Sausage nd to 0.42
    Fish nd to 140
    Fish (processed) nd to 3.9
    Seafood/shrimp nd to 13.1
    Oil nd to 0.38
    Beer up to 6.8
    Tea 0.2-1.5
    Coffee up to 0.5
    http: //www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ … ntType=pdf

    The only people who insist that risks can never be reduced when they are finally discovered are those who find them useful for terrifying the public.

    Did ASH ever mention that the nitrosamines in tobacco had been reduced to less than 0.1 part per million by 2001, presumably on the shelves by 2003?
    If they ever did I don’t remember it.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      This study appears to be wall to wall junk science. They seem to be most worried about “carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs..several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines” (1)

      Guess where Nitrosamines are also formed? Cooking fish, where TSNAs are measured in microgrammes, but in the Berkeley paper nanogrammes a factor of a thousand times smaller. (2)

      Nitrosamines are also found in ham, milk, children’s balloons and tap water. (3)

      Finally the World Health Organization’s cancer mouthpiece the International Agency Research on Cancer says on Nitrosamines: “5.2 Human carcinogenicity data. No data were (sic) available to the Working Group.” (4)

      So we have a dose that is so low, cooking a fish produces 1,000 times more “carcinogens” on a chemical which has not been proven to cause cancer in the first place.

      Junk science that insults the intelligence.

      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/02/08/dangers-of-third-hand-smoke/

      http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/21-1629.pdf

      http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/134/8/2011.pdf

      http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol89/mono89-7E.pdf

      Just a little bit more about the N’-nitrosonornicotine found in SHS/ETS.

      However, the dose makes the poison!!

      This stuff is NOT present in quantities known to be hazardous!!!

      The concentration of N’-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) ranged from not detected to 23 pg/l, that of N’-nitrosoanata-bine ranged from not detected to 9 pg/l, while 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) was detected in concentrations ranging from 1 to 29 pg/l.

      Thus, non-smokers can be exposed to highly carcinogenic TSNA.

      NNN = 0 to 23 picograms per liter

      NNK = 0 to 29 picograms per liter

      1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters

      1 nanogram(NG) = 1,000 picograms

      Thus, NNN of 0 to 23 picograms per liter is the same as 0 to 23 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter

      NNK of 0 to 29 picograms per liter is the same as 0 to 29 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter.

      The question is whether or not 0 to 29 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter of a carcinogenic substance is a dangerous level?

      The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has concluded that inorganic arsenic is known to be a human carcinogen.

      The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cites sufficient evidence of a relationship between exposure to arsenic and human cancer. The IARC classification of arsenic is Group 1.

      The EPA has determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen by the inhalation and oral routes, and has assigned it the cancer classification, Group A.

      http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprof…iles/tp2- c6.pdf
      6.4.1 Air

      Mean arsenic levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from 20 to 30 ng/m3 in urban areas (Davidson et al. 1985; EPA 1982c; IARC 1980; NAS 1977a).

      NOTE: 20 to 30 ng/m3 is NOT stated to be a hazardous level of exposure to this known human carcinogen.

    • nisakiman says:

      Well Rose, what with them having almost eliminated all those carcinogenic nitrosamines from the food chain over the last few decades, it’s not surprising that cancer, so prevalent in the 1950s, is now almost nonexistent.

      Isn’t it?

      • Rose says:

        Nisakiman, I suppose if you do eventually find something worrying in a commonly used food that can be easily removed by changing the methods of production it’s only commonsense to do so, even if it never caused a problem in the first place.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Rose much of these other ingredients are actually required in America by the USDA and even FDA to make the food safe from contamination. Others are actually needed in the processing functions of a factory.

  8. jltrader says:

    How it all started…
    NBC Special Report. Surgeon General’s Smoking Report 1964:

  9. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    No-one gets out of life alive.

    You only have the one – live it before the cancer gets you.

    DP

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokers better watch out for brownshirts

    My father and all my uncles fought a war against the Nazis who wanted to impose their will, their credo and their thuggish personality on those around them. Will all smokers be forced to wear an arm band to make us stand out in the community? Do you intend to recruit thugs to enforce it or even have a tattle line so not only will our neighbours be able to rout us out, or even our children? Why are we bothered about smoking bans when you will not stop our children from being sent to war? Or are their deaths OK? When will we police our communities so that they are safe for women? When will we all have snow clearance as good as that of mayor and council? When will the B.C. government legislate class size and composition? You had best think about it and so should my peers. Enough is enough. This truly is the tip of the iceberg. All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Mike C. Shepherd Prince George –

    See more at: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/opinion/letters/smokers-better-watch-out-for-brownshirts-1.2075194#sthash.8Wft2nD6.dpuf

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    If people choose to smoke, vape or drink too much that should be up to them

    Confusion lies at the heart of public health policy. People must be allowed to make unhealthy choices – not kept well whether they like it or not

    How the headlines have changed: British smokers urged to start vaping by health officials; E-cigarettes ‘should be prescribed on the NHS’. An expert independent evidence review from Public Health England (PHE), recognises that e-cigarettes are not only practically harmless, they are already helping people to give up smoking and are, to quote the author of the review, a “game changer” for the public’s health.

    Vaping, says the review, is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes. Who could object to the view that smokers be encouraged to get vaping, especially if they are already thinking of giving up what is well understood to be a bad habit?

    But the World Health Organisation and European Union are set on banning e-cigarettes, and just a couple of months ago the Welsh government announced it wanted to ban e-cigarettes in enclosed spaces, arguing that they act as a “gateway” to the tobacco-filled variety. These dubious claims – rubbished in PHE’s review of the evidence – have been used to justify threatened clampdowns

    Meanwhile in Britain, something like 2.5 million smokers have taken the lead by switching to this much safer alternative. In other words, they have proved more adept at looking after their own health than those charged with the public’s health. As many as half a million smokers, according to Ash, have switched in the last year alone. On the face of it, a section of the public health establishment has come to its senses and followed suit.

    But while making e-cigarettes available on prescription is quite a turnaround, it is more in keeping with the urge to regulate than to promote smokers’ health. Indeed this new-found enthusiasm for vaping is as likely to raise prices, as e-cigarettes acquire medicinal status, as help smokers do what they are already doing anyway.

    The case of vaping is not atypical of a confusion at the heart of health policy. On the one hand, promoting people’s “independence, choice and control” has become a mantra in health (and social care) circles. On the other, the assumption that the public cannot be trusted to make even the most basic decisions about how they live their everyday lives dominates public health thinking. As one GP pleaded recently, her waiting room of patients is already impossibly demanding without also “trying to remember that [she’s] meant to tell smokers to stop smoking, drinkers to stop drinking, and to wave a wand at obesity” too. And that’s just three items on a very long list.

    Hasn’t general practice got enough to do without having to prescribe e-cigarettes as well? The controversy over vaping is just one of many instances where public health dogmatism is coming up against people’s autonomy. With the exception of GPs helping those patients who need it to manage a long-term condition, or to prevent one getting worse, are the lifestyles of patients really anybody else’s business?

    It is one thing to rightly insist that the NHS change from being a “sickness service” that reacts rather than prevents (reducing infections, preventing falls and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions). It is quite another to insist that people must be kept well whether they like it or not. The health service is supposed to be in the business of promoting, not robbing people of, their capacity to run their own lives – and that means recognising their ability to make unhealthy choices.

    There is a contradiction at the heart of the policy agenda, where a rhetorical commitment to patient choice turns out to be fatally compromised by a paternalism that the health service claims to have abandoned. Patronising people and protecting them from themselves just won’t wash anymore. If we choose to smoke or vape, or drink or eat too much, that should be up to us.

    http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/oct/01/smoke-vape-drink-confusion-health-policy-choices?CMP=share_btn_tw

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Cars harbour deadly bugs including E.coli and salmonella

    Cars typically harbour about 300 different types of germs, ranging from E.coli to salmonella, new research has found.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2798023/Cars-harbour-deadly-bugs-including-E.coli-and-salmonella.html

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria – 2007

      “This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog® microplate panelsand Microlog® database.

      In this study, we have designed an air sampler for microbiological air sampling during the treatment of the room with medicinal smoke. In addition, elimination of the aerial pathogenic bacteria due to the smoke is reported too.

      We have observed that 1 h treatment of medicinal smoke emination by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri = material used in oblation to fire all over India) on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 h in the closed room.

      Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonassyringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens inthe open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.

      We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
      Work has implications to use the smoke generated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferousand medicinal herbs, within confined spaces such as animal barns and seed/grain warehouses to disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner.
      Work indicates that certain known medicinal constituents from the havan sámagri can thus be added to the burning farm material while disposing unwanted agriculture organic material, in order to reduce plant pathogenicorganisms.

      In particular, it highlights the fact that we must think well beyond the physical aspects of smoke on plants in natural habitats and impacts heavily on our understanding of fire as adriving force in evolution.
      We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to contain diverse pathogenic bacteria of the air we breathe.

      The work also highlights the fact about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients for containing indoor airborne infections within confined spaces used for storage of agriculture comodities.

      The dynamic chemical and biological interactions occurring in the atmosphere are much more complex than has been previously realized. The findings warrant a need for further evaluation of various ingredients present in the complex mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs, individually and in various combinations to identify the active principlesinvolved in the bactericidal property of the medicinal smoke, applied in the above discussed fashion.”
      Formerly http: //www.agri-history.org/pdf/Medic…

      Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

      Medicinal smokes

      Abstract
      “All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness.
      To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied.
      Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.

      Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%). The most frequent medical indications for medicinal smoke are pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).

      Other uses of smoke are not exactly medical but beneficial to health, and include smoke as a preservative or a repellent and the social use of smoke.

      The three main methods for administering smoke are inhalation, which accounts for 71.5% of the indications; smoke directed at a specific organ or body part, which accounts for 24.5%; ambient smoke (passive smoking), which makes up the remaining 4.0%. Whereas inhalation is typically used in the treatment of pulmonary and neurological disorders and directed smoke in localized situations, such as dermatological and genito-urinary disorders, ambient smoke is not directed at the body at all but used as an air purifier.

      The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.

      Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients”

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Health watchdog weighs in on which health studies to believe
    http://www.freep.com/story/life/wellness/2015/10/04/sorting-health-studies/73172910/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Here’s his list of what to watch for and watch out for:

      ■ Mainstream stories about animal research often make unfounded links to people, he said. Some articles and news releases neglect to emphasize that animals, not people, were used in the research.

      ■ Look for conflicts of interest among study researchers, institutions and finances. Know who the study funders are. If you know that a pharmaceutical company is funding drug research, be cautious about evaluating the findings.

      ■ Remember that not all studies are equally reliable. The randomized control trial (RCT) is considered to be the most scientifically vigorous study design because it can show cause and effect by conducting research with similar groups of people who are randomly assigned to either a group that receives an intervention or a group that receives no intervention or a placebo. The sole difference in comparison groups is the intervention.

      ■ Conducting an RCT isn’t always possible. If, for example, a study on the correlation between lung cancer and cigarette smoking were to be conducted, it would be unethical to use an RCT design that would require one group to smoke.

      ■ The alternative is an observational study. These studies, often well-structured and reliable, are the only way that certain research questions can be studied. But they show only associations, not cause and effect. A good evaluation of such a study requires looking at biases, chance, cause and other variables that researchers may have failed to control for or eliminate, damaging the veracity of the findings.

      ■ When you read such studies, be aware of the use of causal language when referring to findings that don’t, in fact, prove cause and effect. Schwitzer said studies on diet, for example, are famous for erroneously implying cause and effect, when, in fact, they have shown only a statistical association.

      ■ Assess the quality of evidence. Look at the size of a study group. Generally, a larger study population is a better indication that it represents the general population. Keep in mind that a good study also will tell you about the trial’s dropout rate. If it’s high, it could cause an imbalance that results in skewed findings.

      ■ When evaluating a study, look for the risks and benefits. When findings are reported only in percentages, you’re not getting the full impact of the results. A drug study that reports a reduction in hip fractures of 50% sounds impressive. But, Schwitzer said, the question you need to ask is, 50% of what?

      For example, if people not on the drug had hip fractures at a rate of 2 in 100 and those on the drug had hip fractures at a rate of 1 in 100, then 2-1 = 1% absolute risk, or the exact number represented by 1% of the study population. That means that one person benefited who might not have otherwise, and the other 99 had to take the drug, run the risk of side effects and pay for the drug, all with no benefit. Yes, 2-1 also is a 50% reduction, so it isn’t inaccurate; it’s just half the story and not a very helpful half, Schwitzer added.

      Until study findings can be replicated by independent researchers, they’re preliminary and inconclusive. “What’s happening,” Schwitzer said, “is that too much flawed research is getting published, too many journalists are trumpeting unfounded claims, and people can be hurt by inaccurate, imbalanced, incomplete health care news.”

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    When you read such studies, be aware of the use of causal language when referring to findings that don’t, in fact, prove cause and effect. Schwitzer said studies on diet, for example, are famous for erroneously implying cause and effect, when, in fact, they have shown only a statistical association.

    LOL no study has ever shown cause and effect ever it takes toxicologists to prove cause and effect not risk assessment studies this dip hit writes about on this paragraph.

  15. garyk30 says:

    Most cancers occur in old age.
    This study has ‘proved’ that taller people are more likely to live to old age. ;)

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The ranking goes for all cancer deaths/mortality:

      Per 100,000 population CDC NUMBERS/ smoking rates from tobacco free kids

      Kentucky at 207 Adults in Kentucky who smoke* 29.0% (971,000)

      Miss. 200 Adults in Mississippi who smoke* 26.0% (579,300)

      West Virginia 196 Adults in West Virginia who smoke* 28.6% (420,500)

      Louisianna 196 Adults in Louisiana who smoke* 25.7% (888,300)

      Arkansas 193 Adults in Arkansas who smoke* 27.0% (601,400)

      Alabama 190 Adults in Alabama who smoke* 24.3% (893,100)

      Indiana 187 Adults in Indiana who smoke* 25.6% (1,259,300)

      Maine 186 Adults in Maine who smoke* 22.8% (241,400)

      Missouri 184 Adults in Missouri who smoke* 25.0% (1,149,600)

      Delaware 184 Adults in Delaware who smoke* 21.8% (153,100)

      South Carolina 182 Adults in South Carolina who smoke* 23.1% (831,200)

      Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

      Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

      Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

      AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

      http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It didn’t matter if you had more smokers or even less the rates trended precisely together across the entire sphere.

  16. Furtive Ferret says:

    I read this over on the BBC and unsurprisingly the BBC simply used is a vehicle to trot out the usual shite:

    “To reduce risk of cancer, the most important things to do are:
    ■ give up smoking
    ■ cut down on alcohol
    ■ adopt a healthy diet and lifestyle”

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Medical data show smoking does NOT cause lung cancer

    Did you know that most smokers will never contract lung cancer? Experts and media economical with the truth Studies on the subject are, not surprisingly,…

    https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/medical-data-show-smoking-does-not-cause-lung-cancer/

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking’s health bill

    By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG AND MARGARET CHAN In the Washington Post

    This article was published today at 2:49 a.m.

    For the first time, the global sustainable-development goals being negotiated at the United Nations treat tobacco use–and the chronic diseases it causes–as a development issue. It’s long overdue.

    Around the world, about 6 million people die every year from a tobacco-related disease.

    The cause of these problems–tobacco sales–can also contribute to their solution. The tobacco industry, which generates more than $35 billion in profits annually, should bear the costs it inflicts upon society. And there is a straightforward way to ensure that it does: taxation. Why, after all, should governments effectively subsidize tobacco companies by picking up the tab for the health-care costs they generate?

    Increasing taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products has mostly been a strategy for reducing usage, and it has proved incredibly successful. The evidence is clear that raising tobacco taxes cuts use, encourages smokers to quit and discourages young people from starting. In fact, the most price-sensitive demographic for tobacco use is young people, who tend to have less disposable income than their elders. Low-income populations are also sensitive to price increases, making taxes especially effective in poorer countries where tobacco use is rising fast.

    Those same countries also have the greatest need for better health-care services. In addition to reducing the burdens on health-care systems, tobacco taxes can help countries absorb the huge costs imposed by tobacco usage.

    In 2012 the Philippines passed its landmark Sin Tax reform law. This legislation, which increased tax rates on low-priced cigarettes by more than 300 percent, generates revenue for the country’s universal health-care insurance program. By 2014 these funds had helped the government subsidize the health-insurance premiums of approximately half the population.

    The tobacco industry rejects the idea that it should pay for the long-term health costs its products generate, and it is working hard, directly and through front groups, to persuade governments to go easy on the taxes. If any other consumer product were known to kill one in two of its users, there would be calls on governments to ban it. Yet in much of the world, tobacco is only lightly regulated and taxed.

    If the primary role of government is to protect lives–and we believe it is–then tobacco taxes are an essential tool. The United Nations should encourage countries to raise tobacco taxes to support the world’s development goals and reduce tobacco use.

    ————v————

    Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013. Margaret Chan is director-general of the World Health Organization.

    http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/oct/04/smoking-s-health-bill-20151004/

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Healthy smoker’s lungs

    Despite a lifetime of smoking, some smokers may have perfectly healthy lungs.

    https://www.the-newshub.com/science/healthy-smokers-lungs

    • slugbop007 says:

      Did not like this paragraph:
      The results may lead to renewed efforts by pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs to curb the effects of smoking and improve lung function.
      Makes me suspicious.

  20. garyk30 says:

    No mention of being non-smokers

    In 1966, asked to describe the person least likely to develop atherosclerosis, Cambridge research fellow Alan N. Howard answered, “A hypotensive, bicycling, unemployed, hypo-beta-lipoproteinic, hyper-alpha-lipoproteinic, non-smoking, hypolipaemic, underweight, premenopausal female dwarf living in a crowded room on the island of Crete before 1925 and subsisting on a diet of uncoated cereals, safflower oil, and water.”

    Oxford physician Alan Norton added that her male counterpart was an ectomorphic Bantu who worked as a London bus conductor, had spent the war in a Norwegian prison camp, never ate refined sugar, never drank coffee, always ate five or more small meals a day, and was taking large doses of estrogen to check the growth of his prostate cancer.

    “All these phrases mark correlations established in the last few years in a field of medical research which, in volume at least, is unsurpassed,” noted Richard Mould in Mould’s Medical Anecdotes.
    “The conflict of evidence is unequalled as well.”

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s