• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 14 votes

Smoking is good for you!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
492 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ LongeCity grant support for self-testing

#61 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:16 PM

there is biochemical evidence for some positve effects of smoking.
populations with high expectancy of life have often a high percentage of smokers.

the oldest known people were smokers with low consumption of cigarettes. this is surely no coincidence.

if you are better than everyone else of the world you cannot have made much mistakes.
instead nearly every detail must be right.

the consumption of cigarettes seems to me an important detail.
the right dosage is crucial.

i want to follow jeanne calment:

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

but i have never smoked. can anybody recommend something to smoke concerning optimal health?
cigarettes or better small cigars?
  • like x 1

#62 cathological

  • Registered User
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:50 PM

Posted Image

This clearly could have been caused by just about anything.
  • Ill informed x 2
  • like x 1

#63 frederickson

  • Registered User
  • 263 posts
  • 38

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:10 PM

a gastroenterologist colleague of mine gave a fascinating presentation on the protective effects of cigarette smoking against both the incidence and symptoms colitis, a form of irritable bowel syndrome.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ogdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ogdbfrom=pubmed

(full text available, upon request)

at the conclusion of this interesting presentation, i asked whether tobacco in other forms had demonstrated the same protective effects. the presenter said there was not enough data, but that in his own practice chewing tobacco did not appear to offer the same protection.

while i think the net negative of smoking tobacco is negative, and i abhor it personally, i abhor narrow-minded "scientific" thinking even more.

#64 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:30 PM

Posted Image

This clearly could have been caused by just about anything.


everything a question of the right dosage.

you can kill a human with water.

the evidence is high that low dosage smoking is positive for lifespan.

#65 mustardseed41

  • Registered User
  • 928 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:35 PM

Nightlight you remind me of Charlie Manson. Sounds like he's really smart but in the end has said nothing that makes sense.


And you, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting comments like this without anything constructive. If you disagree with nightlight's points, great: then express why they are wrong instead of comparing him to Charlie Manson.

I got really pissed off reading the old smoking thread when it was still going on, and now I remember why. I always thought this forum is supposed to be for people who want to find out the truth, whether or not it conflicts with what they've always thought was true. Name-calling is not going to achieve that goal.


I am so ashamed ...I am so ashamed......I bet you smoke also......don't you?....don't you??????
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • dislike x 1

#66 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:51 PM

"Cigarette smoking has been clearly linked to the most common causes of death in the elderly and contributes to the higher death rate and disability rate associated with many chronic illnesses that are common in this age group. The combination of smoking along with other risk factors like hypertension and diabetes increase high frequency disease, and disability as well as adding to an increase in mortality rate. In order to verify if a healthy lifestyle really favours longevity and how much smoking is incompatible with extreme longevity, we investigated the prevalence of smokers and the total smoking exposure of a sample of centenarians as regards residual survival and health conditions. Our sample consists of 157 centenarians selected among the registered residents of Rome: 39 males and 118 females (ratio = 1:3), mean age being 101.59 years (sd = 1.8). 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5% are former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers. The average starting age of smoking was 21.2 years while the average age of quitting in former smokers was 65.7 years with an average of 44.7 smoking years (sd = 17.1). The average number of smoked cigarettes per day is quite low, less than 10 cigarettes. There seemed to be a significant difference (p < 0.001) in gender results in smokers: male centenarians were 46%, while female reached only 8.1%. Statistically significant higher prevalence of diseases illnesses were noted among centenarian smokers over the age of 65 (p < 0.02). Moreover Cox's regression has shown in centenarians a lower survival rate (p < 0.05) in smokers than in non-smokers. In conclusion, our study is evidence that smoking is for all, but some exceptional subjects, incompatible with successful aging and compromises life expectancy even in extrem longevity".
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/15147062e

Edited by Blue, 28 February 2010 - 10:51 PM.

  • like x 1

#67 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:57 PM

[quote name='Blue' post='387499' date='Feb 28 2010, 11:16 AM']Here are several reviews of animal smoking exposure studies by RE Coggins.

Rodents
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9608635
http://legacy.librar...0/Sblw84c00.pdf

Hamsters, dogs, and primates
http://tpx.sagepub.c...t/refs/29/5/550
http://tpx.sagepub.c...nt/29/5/550.pdf[/quote]

Coggins 2001 reviews above don't add much, tegarding the experimental support for antismoking 'science', to what the later Hecht's review (2005) presented and discussed earlier. The notorious thracheotomized dogs experiments where highly invasive and unnatural (huge localized concentrations forced upon poor beagles, with no feedback), causing numerous deaths from infections alone (due to surgeries & equipment contaminations). They were heavily cricized (see some observations here). The more natural, inhalation studies on dogs, were also somewhat problematic (due to different pattern of smoke inhalation from humans, resulting in higher nasal concentrations in dogs), and they were not carried out to the full lifespan of dogs.

The most interesting tidbit though, buried deep in the dogs experiments section (experiments by Cross et al, 1982), at the end of a sentence (p. 555), are the results of combined effects of radon (via uranium dusts) inhalation and tobacco smoke. While the radon alone had no problems in inducing lung cancers in dogs (or any other animals), the combined effect of tobacco smoke and radon resulted in significant protection against lung cancers in smoking dogs -- while the nonsmoking dogs exposed to radon had 37% incidence of lung tumors, the smoking dogs exposed to radon had only 5% lung tumor incidence (from the orginal Cross et al. 1982 paper, p. 48):

"Results of this experiment indicate that cigarette-smoke exposure, under the conditions of the experiment, had a mitigating effect of radon-daughter induced respiratory tract cancer in dogs... This difference is significant (p=0.03 Fischer's Exact test)."

(Then the authors speculate that this protective effectt of tobacco smoke against respiratory cancers may be due to greater excretion of mucus in smoking dogs.)

Coggins concludes his 2001 review with an important general observation (p. 556):

The results shown here and in the previous review are clearly at variance with the epidemiological evidence in smokers (29). It is difficult to reconcile this major difference between observational studies in humans and controlled laboratory studies..

[quote]http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17661224[/quote]

This updated Coggins review review requires subscription to access the paper. If you have pdf, please submit it, or at least provide (accessible) primary references to any new experiments. Was there anything significant new since 2005 Hecht's review or 2005 or B6C3F1 mice experiments from 2005?

[quote]So there is a surprising numbers of animals models where smoking exposure has had little effect. On other hand, smoking does not generally extends lifespan either, for example a much larger hamster study found a dose dependent reduction in male but not female lifespan (SG1 in the second review). Regarding SG4, the smaller hamster study discussed in the first post, the authors speculated that this was due to smoking protecting against amyloidosis, a frequent cause of death in this animal model (but not in humans).[/quote]


[quote]But again, humans are not other animals. There are animal models where smoking greatly increases cancer:

"Although cigarette smoke has been epidemiologically associated with lung cancer in humans for many years, animal models of cigarette smoke-induced lung cancer have been lacking. This study demonstrated that life time, whole body exposures of female B6C3F1 mice to mainstream cigarette smoke at 250 mg total particulate matter/m3 for 6 hours per day, 5 days a week induces marked increases in the incidence of focal alveolar hyperplasias, and pulmonary adenomas, papillomas and adenocarcinomas. ...
http://carcin.oxford...stract/bgi150v2[/quote]

That is the B6C3F1 mice paper from 2005 already discussed here and a similar rat experiments by the same research group here. Both backfired in the same way -- the "harmed" smoking rodents lived significantly longer than the "healthy" living non-smoking rodents. Both experiments were covered in more detail in those two posts linked above (the reports had problems with wishful interpretations & misleading claims in the abstract). The bottom line, though is that in both experiments, the smoking animals outlived the nonsmoking ones, despite extreme and unnatural smoke exposure levels (these pharma consultants, drove it to the very edge of asphyxiation, and still it didn't "work").

[quote]Should we take some average value of all animals models and then conclude that for humans smoking cannot be very harmful? Obviously not, we do not do this for other characteristics like intelligence or amount of body hair. Smoking as shown can be very harmful in certain species/models and humans happen to be another.[/quote]

Those that carried out smoking experiments through the full lifespan of animals, without "recovery periods" (euphemism for the extremely harmful forcible mid-age sudden quitting, a massive biochemical meltdown, to make the smoking animals fat and sick), demonstrate quite clearly the life-extending effects of tobacco smoke. Most experiments unfortunately were terminated before the effects on full lifespan have been measured (especially on larger animals), and some that weren't (mysteriously) don't report the survival figures. Those that do report them, strongly favor smoking animals ("paradox" attributed to various factors, such as lower weight, amyloidosis, cortico-steroid upregulation, etc). These life-extending effects of t.s. are particularly strong in experiments where animals are co-exposed to various toxins and carcinogens or radiation. This further supports the self-medication mechanism as the explanation of the "major diifference" between the experiments and human epidemiology noted above by Coggins -- people under toxic & carcinogenic exposure would instictively self-medicate using tobacco smoke (perceiving the benefits from the nearly doubled detox rates), yielding the positive statistical correlations on non-randomized samples between smoking and the diseases induced by those toxins & carcinogens.
  • like x 1

#68 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:27 PM

"... Our sample consists of 157 centenarians selected among the registered residents of Rome: 39 males and 118 females (ratio = 1:3), mean age being 101.59 years (sd = 1.8).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15147062


In addition to the typical junk science leaps from observations on non-randmized samples to causality claims, this one shows also the common cherry picking of locale and a small samples where the numbers happen to fluctuate the "right" way. That's like the infamous 'Helena miracle' and similar reports on the alleged miraculous dramatic drops in heart attacks following smoking bans. All such studies (including few in select Italian cities) pick a county or a city or a subset of hospitals where the numbers happen to look just "right" and report that as a major discovery. Sometimes they use contrived exclusion criteria to make the data fit the theory (such as peculiar age restrictions, hospitals surveyed, time intervals,...). Larger samples covering the same smaller areas, wiped out any statistical effects (weak as they are, being all non-randomized, anyway) of smoking bans on heart attacks. Well, what can poor folks do but stick with junk science, for over six decades now, since the hard science "paradoxically" comes out the "wrong" way. If the reality won't budge their way, the "science" surely will (or at least the its definition will).

#69 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:32 PM

This updated Coggins review review requires subscription to access the paper. If you have pdf, please submit it, or at least provide (accessible) primary references to any new experiments.

I have no obligation whatsoever to provide you with free copies of articles which does not support your crank theories. Go to a library and order them. Please stop quoting personal views by Coggins from his earlier outdated reviews.

The bottom line, though is that in both experiments, the smoking animals outlived the nonsmoking ones, despite extreme and unnatural smoke exposure levels (these pharma consultants, drove it to the very edge of asphyxiation, and still it didn't "work").

No, the point is that here is model were smoking caused lung cancer. Regarding the better outcome for other factors, here as in the hamster study there was a significant weight reduction. Maybe in effect the animals lost appetite due to smoking and experienced a calorie restriction effect. In fact, this a possible confounding factor for all smoking experiments, that appetite suppression causes calorie restriction. In other words, the very large benefits of calorie restriction offset the harmful effect of the smoke itself.

Those that carried out smoking experiments through the full lifespan of animals, without "recovery periods" (euphemism for the extremely harmful forcible mid-age sudden quitting, a massive biochemical meltdown, to make the smoking animals fat and sick), demonstrate quite clearly the life-extending effects of tobacco smoke.

I have already mentioned in my last post a larger hamster study where smoking decreased lifespan.
  • Needs references x 1

#70 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:39 PM

"... Our sample consists of 157 centenarians selected among the registered residents of Rome: 39 males and 118 females (ratio = 1:3), mean age being 101.59 years (sd = 1.8).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15147062


In addition to the typical junk science leaps from observations on non-randmized samples to causality claims, this one shows also the common cherry picking of locale and a small samples where the numbers happen to fluctuate the "right" way. That's like the infamous 'Helena miracle' and similar reports on the alleged miraculous dramatic drops in heart attacks following smoking bans. All such studies (including few in select Italian cities) pick a county or a city or a subset of hospitals where the numbers happen to look just "right" and report that as a major discovery. Sometimes they use contrived exclusion criteria to make the data fit the theory (such as peculiar age restrictions, hospitals surveyed, time intervals,...). Larger samples covering the same smaller areas, wiped out any statistical effects (weak as they are, being all non-randomized, anyway) of smoking bans on heart attacks. Well, what can poor folks do but stick with junk science, for over six decades now, since the hard science "paradoxically" comes out the "wrong" way. If the reality won't budge their way, the "science" surely will (or at least the its definition will).

How do you know it was not non-randomized? That is not stated.

Spare me conspiracy theories.

#71 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:03 AM

I googled "Smoking Lifespan" I found:

http://www.medicalne...ticles/9703.php
http://www.webmd.com...is-tool-measure
http://articles.sfga...british-doctors
http://www.no-smokin...12-15-03-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2...span/index.html

I googled "Smoking Extends Lifespan" I found.... nothing related and sometimes more about smoking shortening lifespan.. Interesting!


Luna that first article is bunk...if you quit in time you can live a full life, that is what all stats have pointed to. It really angers me when they say oh a pack takes off a half hour of your life, as if you are in no control to get it back! What kind of a message does that send to smokers who WANT to quit and live a long life? It basically tells them you are doomed if you've smoked for even a couple of years. Considering 1.1 billion people smoke in the world and 1/3 of adults smoke in the world we would be basically seeing billions of people dead at super young ages...the other articles are more truthful.

#72 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:13 AM

[quote name='nightlight' post='387404' date='Feb 28 2010, 06:45 AM'][quote name='dfowler' post='387389' date='Feb 27 2010, 11:30 PM']I smoked for 3 years hard due to SERIOUS depression...I coughed more, and I felt sick often...yes I enjoyed it, but facts are facts...[/quote]

You probably smoked supermarket junk made of reconstituted tobacco sheets (Marlboro is the worst on that pile), and likely filtered (the non-biodegradable fibers will give you coughs, they've got to be expelled somehow; filters were one of the early submissions to the antismoking scam, and it like the rest of such compromises, it is harmful). Further, you were also likely fully hooked into the antismoking propaganda matrix, and that may have harmed you more than anything else (filters or additives) -- the witch doctor effect (negative placebo) kills as surely as any poison.

[quote]look at William O' Rights who died of lung cancer from smoking 20 plus years...look at Paul Newman, died of lung cancer 28 years smoking...Peter Jennings, George Harrison, Audrey Hepburn...and these are just well known celebrities.[/quote]

If I recall correctly, O'Rights was suddenly yanked from tobacco (as well as from massive numbers of supplements), when he ended up in prison, which is where he got lung cancer. He also spent lots of time inhaling gasoline and paint fumes working on his bikes and cars. Then after the accident, he was exposed to massive ammounts of ionizing radioation from diagnostic X-rays.... Others were also all former smokers, some were scared to death and had quit decades earlier -- quitting smoking is extremely harmful, worse even than never starting to smoke. Considering how deep is the reconfiguration of your biochemical networks as they synergistically intertwine with those of tobacco, quitting it's a full blown biochemical meltdown at all levels. See for example a recent paper "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?" (discussed here). In animal experiments, the only known way to cause harm to smoking animals, other than spiking the smoke with radioactive tracers (for "diagnostic" allegedly) is via satanically named "recovery period" (intense smoking until 'middle age' equivalent, then sudden complete quitting; see discussion here).


[quote]Nightlight, you're trying to justify a habit that you may LOVE, but it still is a mere rationalization![/quote]

Reality is rationalization (for solipsists, at least). Also, ad hominem argument will be seen by readers as an admission of defeat.

[quote]And there are many randomized trials I'm sure proving that 50% of lifelong smokers die of cancers, (almost all except two,) heart disease, COPD, and emphasyma, and who knows how many others?[/quote]

Check this review on the subject (or a book here) -- there were a handful randomized intervention trials with smoking, bu they all backfired badly (e.g. 'quit group' ended up with more lung cancers or heart attacks, no matter how much they tortured the data, it just wouldn't confess:) and so they just gave up on doing them -- it doesn't work. You are welcome to bring up any truly randomized trials. Good luck searching.


[quote]If you are addicted, it's never too late to start a healthy lifestyle, and I AM a firm believer that eating fruits, vegetables of the right kind, lean proteins, some carbs, and supplements like Vitamin D, Green Tea, and Curcumin, among others can greatly reduce your chances of getting smoking related cancers.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong in being dependent on something that is good for you. We are all "addicted" to food, water, air, family, friends, reading,... If something is good for you, transferring the need to replenish it to automated/reflexive systems (the so-called "addiction") is quite useful, time and effort saving transformation.

[quote]And despite the opposition here, I DO believe rigorous exercise multiple times a week also is a potentially great reducer of cancers and heart disease.[/quote]

Two words, Jim Fixx. From casual observations, athletes do seem to die quite a bit younger than regular folks, clerks, librarians, engineers,... unless they are smokers, like the that former military fitness instructor Buster Martin, who smoked since age 7 and who completed London marathon at age 101 (smoking along the way).

[quote]edit: I know the cold stats of smoking related deaths is very scary, but there are plenty of people who quit late in life who do not go on to die of smoking related causes, or who die very old people of smoking related causes...either way it's always beneficial to quit and you can quit at any age and add 10 years on to your life. Statistics can be misleading...[/quote]

You can also start smoking at any age and still benefit. The longest living man in the world, Shigechiyo Izumi (see at the top of the thread), started smoking at age 70. Some folks, scientifically well educated and health fanatics, who lived four or five decades as nonsmokers, until their lucky day when they decided to educate me, usually at a party or at work, that I ought to quit smoking, it is terribly bad for me,... and then I 'splained to them few things about glutathione, SOD, MAO B,... gave them books, emailed links to papers, and few days later they would ask me where can they order 'organic tobacco'...

[quote]oh, and there is no evidence pointing to Obama having ever been a chain smoker...I'm not even sure if he smoked consistently from early adult hood until when he supposedly quit at age 46...he may have quit for a good decade in between...last thing I read Obama averaged 5 to 10 smokes per day...[/quote]

Opinions certainly vary on that question. I wouldn't trust his word on it, though. The first law he signed was to raise tax on rolling tobacco (among other antismoker taxes) by astronomical 2200%, taxing the folks who surely must be making 250K or more a year (recalling his promise on no new taxes for those below 250K/year). Considering his stressful childhood and teens (abandonment, by flakey, shifty father and unstable mother, both wandering all over, politically, psychologically and geographically, dating and marying the 'wrong' way for the zeitgeist...), along with his use of hard drugs, I suspect he was likely self-medicating by chain smoking at least for couple decades of his life, possibly reduced some after his kids were born and Michelle tightened the screws. Anyway, my argument doesn't depend in the least on his habits. That photo was a mere illustration in response to an equally 'significant' anecdote with a photo that Luna posted.
[/quote]

I don't have time for a lengthy reply but if you are correct in that quitting smoking abruptly causes even more lung cancers, - and presumably other cancers, - then that's even more reason to never smoke! How ridiculous to think that once you start you have to keep damaging yourself and if you don't then shame on you...you have zero credibility with this argument.

Luna's studies, (except for the first one,) I all completely agree with.

You're may be right about Obama, who knows if he's lying.

In summation your argument about quitting is even more scarier for those who do smoke.

And I know anecdotal stories as well as reading stats about plenty of people who continue to smoke and still die of smoking related causes.

I do think slowly quitting vs. abrupt cessation should be academically researched a lot more, as it may save lives.

Edited by dfowler, 01 March 2010 - 12:38 AM.


#73 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:16 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

#74 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:22 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/

#75 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:25 AM

"... Our sample consists of 157 centenarians selected among the registered residents of Rome: 39 males and 118 females (ratio = 1:3), mean age being 101.59 years (sd = 1.8).
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15147062


In addition to the typical junk science leaps from observations on non-randmized samples to causality claims, this one shows also the common cherry picking of locale and a small samples where the numbers happen to fluctuate the "right" way. That's like the infamous 'Helena miracle' and similar reports on the alleged miraculous dramatic drops in heart attacks following smoking bans. All such studies (including few in select Italian cities) pick a county or a city or a subset of hospitals where the numbers happen to look just "right" and report that as a major discovery. Sometimes they use contrived exclusion criteria to make the data fit the theory (such as peculiar age restrictions, hospitals surveyed, time intervals,...). Larger samples covering the same smaller areas, wiped out any statistical effects (weak as they are, being all non-randomized, anyway) of smoking bans on heart attacks. Well, what can poor folks do but stick with junk science, for over six decades now, since the hard science "paradoxically" comes out the "wrong" way. If the reality won't budge their way, the "science" surely will (or at least the its definition will).


How do you know it was not non-randomized? That is not stated.


The categories 'smoker' 'ex-smoker' and 'never-smoker' were not assigned randomly to the study subjects by the researchers (in which case the statistical correlations may imply causal relations). Instead, these subjects were members of these classes due to some other causes (socio-econimic status, stress, toxic exposures at work, depression,...), which on their own could have caused diseases and affected lifespans of these subjects.For example if you consider users of statins (or any other drug) and compare them to non-users of statins, without randomizing the assignments (as it is done in drug trials), you could easily observe that statin users will have more heart attacks than non-users -- the use of statins on self-selected (or doctor selected) subjects is a mere statistical marker of heart disease, not a cause of the heart attacks. You cannot jump to conclusion that statins cause heart attacks based on such observation of statistical correlations on non-randomized (self-selected) samples. Unless of course, you are "researching" smoking, where anything that "concludes" <smoking is bad>, goes.


Spare me conspiracy theories.


What are you talking about? Did you perhaps have a nap and had a bad dream about aliens trying to steal your reproductive cells or somethin' ?

#76 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:39 AM

Theoretically you could be right. Smoking is superhealthy but among centenarians in Rome and among all other studies of centenarians the superhealthy effect of smoking is swamped by bad "socio-econimic status, stress, toxic exposures at work, depression,..." among the smokers. Not impossible, just very, very, very unlikely.

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 12:41 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#77 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:40 AM

How ridiculous to think that once you start you have to keep damaging yourself and if you don't then shame on you...you have zero credibility with this argument.


Of course the conclusion is ridiculous if you start with a false premise "keep damaging yourself". The hard science (animal expriments) demonstrates that the premise is not merely formally false but that the net effect of life-long inhalation of tobacco smoke is clearly beneficial for health and longevity. You are welcome to show some hard scientific evidence (experiments) that supports your premise. Otherwise that premise is merely an element of your own personal faith, which you have every right to hold and cherish.

Posted Image

Edited by nightlight, 01 March 2010 - 12:50 AM.


#78 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:46 AM

The hamster study again? Already shown another, bigger hamster study with the opposite effect. Regarding your hamster study, the effect, as previously stated, could be due to very beneficial CR caused by smoking (reduced weight a well-known effect of smoking and weight was reduced substantially among the smoking hamsters) negating the harmful effect of the smoke or as the authors discussed due smoking affecting amyloidosis, a common cause of death in this animal model but not in humans. Or simply humans having a particular genetic weakness for smoking which this animal model does not have.

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 12:54 AM.

  • Needs references x 1

#79 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:59 AM

Theoretically you could be right. Smoking is superhealthy but among centenarians in Rome and among all other studies of centenarians the superhealthy effect of smoking is swamped by bad "socio-econimic status, stress, toxic exposures at work, depression,..." among the smokers. Not impossible, just very, very, very unlikely.


Considering the numerous well established therapeutic and protective effects of t.s. (which don't exist only in the matrix of 'antismoking epidemiology'), especially the potent anti-inflammatory effects, along with strong upregulation of internal detox & antioxidant enzymes, the self-medication mechanism is perfectly plausible (which in turn can easily yield correlations on non-randomized samples). It is certainly not in the "very, very, very unlikely" category.

#80 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:02 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/


it is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

30 million humans of japan smoke.
this is a high percentage of the population.
http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

and japan has highest life expectancy.

cuba similar.

see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm

how many competitors had Mme Calment? BILLIONS.
BILLIONS of non-smokers. and you assume that she would have lived longer if she did not smoke?
world record holders can not make many mistakes. every detail must be perfect. smoking was an important detail.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 01:14 AM.


#81 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:09 AM

Theoretically you could be right. Smoking is superhealthy but among centenarians in Rome and among all other studies of centenarians the superhealthy effect of smoking is swamped by bad "socio-econimic status, stress, toxic exposures at work, depression,..." among the smokers. Not impossible, just very, very, very unlikely.


Considering the numerous well established therapeutic and protective effects of t.s. (which don't exist only in the matrix of 'antismoking epidemiology'), especially the potent anti-inflammatory effects, along with strong upregulation of internal detox & antioxidant enzymes, the self-medication mechanism is perfectly plausible (which in turn can easily yield correlations on non-randomized samples). It is certainly not in the "very, very, very unlikely" category.

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

#82 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:11 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/


it is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

30 million humans of japan smoke.
this is a high percentage of the population.
http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

and japan has highest life expectancy.

cuba similar.

see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm


those stats are from 1994 which is interesting because we'll see if half the population of Cuba and Japan will die on average 10 to 14 years earlier in the next 20 to 50 years I guess.

I'm really starting to think that the polyphenols and catechins in green tea may explain Japan high life expectancy...but what about Cuba, Spain, and lordy Israel had almost half their population smoking in 1990 :)...

What are your theories for Israel and Cuba and Spain, among others?

Edited by dfowler, 01 March 2010 - 01:14 AM.


#83 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:15 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/


it is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

30 million humans of japan smoke.
this is a high percentage of the population.
http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

and japan has highest life expectancy.

cuba similar.

see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm

One nation is still just one anecdotal example. You need to do a proper statistical study comparing all nations. Again, people in Japan do a lot of healthy things, Green Tea, Natto, Soybeans, less burned foods, fish, and so on which likely offsets tobacco smoking. If tobacco smoking is healthy why do the females live much longer in Japan despite smoking much less?

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 01:16 AM.


#84 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:18 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/


it is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

30 million humans of japan smoke.
this is a high percentage of the population.
http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

and japan has highest life expectancy.

cuba similar.

see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm

One nation is still just one anecdotal example. You need to do a proper statistical study comparing all nations. Again, people in Japan do a lot of healthy things, Green Tea, Natto, Soybeans, less burned foods, fish, and so on which likely offsets tobacco smoking. If tobacco smoking is healthy why do the females live much longer in Japan despite smoking much less?

this is my conclusion as well...lifestyle factors greatly can increase, and even offset deleterious things such as smoking. It actually excites me to think we have so much control over our lifespans...of course nothing compared to the future technology which will emancipate us all from this restricted life span we have currently.

#85 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:20 AM

there is a lot of evidence that smoking in high dosages reduces lifespan.

the interesting question is whether low dosage smoking has positive effects for lifespan.

there is evidence, that this is true.

the oldest known human of the world should be a non-smoker if low or high dosage smoking is bad.
but it has been a low dosage smoker.

the oldest marathon finisher is a smoker. there are so many non-smokers. all failed to get this world record.

There is no evidence for low-smoking being good. Anecdotes regarding a single person is not evidence.

Link did not work last time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1514706...$=activity

Also,
"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."
http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s19117.htm

"Substantial smoking history is rare."
http://www.bumc.bu.e...arian/overview/


it is not just anecdotes on the world record holders in lifespan.

30 million humans of japan smoke.
this is a high percentage of the population.
http://en.wikipedia....moking_in_Japan

and japan has highest life expectancy.

cuba similar.

see http://www.kidon.com...ercentages2.htm

One nation is still just anecdotal example. You need to do a proper statistical study comparing all nations. Again, people in Japan do a lot of healthy things, Green Tea, Natto, Soybeans, less burned foods, fish, and so on which likely offsets tobacco smoking. If tobacco smoking is healthy why do the females live much longer despite smoking much less?


no. one nation is statistics on millions of people. and you ignore the fact that again- it is the world record holder. the record holder can not make many mistakes because any mistake reduces the probability to be the record holder dramatically.

and you ignore the fact that i have given you a link with several nations.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 01:20 AM.


#86 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:23 AM

What are your theories for Israel and Cuba and Spain, among others?

Spain, Israel, Mediterranean diet
Cuba, dubious official statistics regarding life expectancy for political reasons

Again, anecdotal examples. A proper study or at least a correlation between smoking and life expectancy for many nations is evidence, anecdotes are not.
  • Disagree x 1

#87 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:28 AM

What are your theories for Israel and Cuba and Spain, among others?

Spain, Israel, Mediterranean diet
Cuba, dubious official statistics regarding life expectancy for political reasons

Again, anecdotal examples. A proper study or at least a correlation between smoking and life expectancy for many nations is evidence, anecdotes are not.


no.

clear evidence that the myth that smoking reduces necesarrily lifespan is wrong.

if smoking is bad, the top 15 nations should not smoke so much.

it is pure evidence against your opinion.

#88 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:30 AM

no. one nation is statistics on millions of people. and you ignore the fact that again- it is the world record holder. the record holder can not make many mistakes because any mistake reduces the probability to be the record holder dramatically.

and you ignore the fact that i have given you a link with several nations.

No, one example or one number is one anecdote. Statistics is looking at many examples or many numbers. Do a proper study or a least a correlation between the life expectancy and smoking rate for the nations of the world.

#89 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:32 AM

no. one nation is statistics on millions of people. and you ignore the fact that again- it is the world record holder. the record holder can not make many mistakes because any mistake reduces the probability to be the record holder dramatically.

and you ignore the fact that i have given you a link with several nations.

No, one example or one number is one anecdote. Statistics is looking at many examples or many numbers. Do a proper study or a least a correlation between the life expectancy and smoking rate for the nations of the world.


billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is a substantial difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 01:37 AM.


⌛⇒ LongeCity grant support for self-testing

#90 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:34 AM

no. one nation is statistics on millions of people. and you ignore the fact that again- it is the world record holder. the record holder can not make many mistakes because any mistake reduces the probability to be the record holder dramatically.

and you ignore the fact that i have given you a link with several nations.

No, one example or one number is one anecdote. Statistics is looking at many examples or many numbers. Do a proper study or a least a correlation between the life expectancy and smoking rate for the nations of the world.

Yes but it's still very exciting to think that even among extraordinarily high smoking countries, - and these are entire countries, - that there are things that are DOABLE to offset other terrible lifestyle behaviors.

If we were to take these findings and research individual lifestyle behaviors, obviously we could really help people live much longer, even people who have terribly abused their health...this is exciting to me.

And although I agree with your general thinking Blue, these are hard numbers, which is obviously not anecdotal.

Edited by dfowler, 01 March 2010 - 01:36 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users