• 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

#121 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:56 PM

Since you play the tactic of selective answering and ignoring other arguments and replies, then later followed by repeating an already answered arguments while ignoring the reply, I will start listing all the answers at once.

1. Animal studies of TS (tobacco smoke) exposure and lung cancer. Yes, until recently they did not find much conclusive evidence. But now we have animal models where TS clearly causes lung cancer (the lifespan of TS models due to other diseases is discussed in the next post.) Should we take some average value of all animals models and then conclude that for humans smoking cannot be cannot cause lung cancer? Obviously not, we do not do this for other characteristics like intelligence or amount of body hair. Smoking as shown can clearly cause lung cancer certain species/models and humans happens to be another.

2. Animal studies of TS and lifespan. Yes, there is the hamster study showing lifespan increase from TS (tobacco smoke. Was in hamsters prone to amyloidosis which is a rare cause of death in humans, even if we count Alzheimers as due to amyloidosis (which is not proven). TS is also well known for capacity to reduce weight. The hamsters, as well as the animals in several other TS animal studies, showed a large weight reduction. CR, which TS thus may cause, is the factor with best evidence for lifespan extension. So the CR effect may offset the harmful effect of the smoke itself in these animal studies. Also, there are studies where TS causes a lifespan reduction. May be criticized for not representing the human situation but neither does amyloidosis prone hamsters on CR. More generally, the value of animal studies is very limited since humans are not short-lived animals with different metabolism and diseases.

3. TS causes an upregulation of certain defence systems such as antioxidants and detoxication. That is what you expect from toxic substances. Upregulation cannot compensate for a heavy toxic insults. If you want to do upregulate with a mild toxic insult , then there are safer methods such as moderate exercise and ALA.

4. Nicotine may have certain beneficial effects when given alone like modulation of the immune system which may be beneficial under certain conditions. It not evidence for what TS with its enourmous amount of substances will do. The effect may well be the opposite due to the effects of other substances. If you want nicotine, despite it being extremely addicting, then it is better to only take nicotine. The same applies to other possible good substances in TS.

5. Certain nations like Japan and Spain have a long average life expectancy despite high prevalence of smoking. These nations do a lot of other healthy things. In particular good average diets. Smoking is important but not the only factor determining life expectancy.

6. Jeanne Calment, the person with longest confirmed lifespan, smoked. She was an exception. Very long-lived people in general do not smoke and those who do are sicker.

7. There may be some confounding factors missed by epidemiologists in the thousands of studies showing harmful effect of TS. Of course theoretically possible, just very, very unlikely. Epidemiologists have certainly not ignored obvious ones like smoking being more prevalent among those with lower SES in every study. If ignoring evidence for not being 100% certain, then there is no evidence for any prescription drugs either, also placebo-controlled, randomized studies rely on probability, there is always an a very small chance that the result showing an effect is a false positive due chance or a confounding factor missed even by controlled experiments.

8. TS may protect against certain diseases like Parkinson or Alzheimer among those with Apo E4. A double standard, epidemiologic evidence is only accepted when the result happens to favor TS. Does not change the situation for most diseases and the overall morbidity/mortality.

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 02:32 PM.


#122 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 16
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 02:40 PM

I worked as a hospital orderly one summer in college. ...


The other common "risk factor" of their rapid demise, besides smoking, was that they were both in hospital shortly before their deaths. Therefore , applying the knee-jerk "logic" of antismoking pseudo-science, we can surely conclude that hospitals kill (unlike tobacco, they actually do kill, but that's another story).

How do you know that these folks were not instinctively self-medicating throughout their lives using tobacco e.g. to help detox gasoline or paint fumes or other scientifically well established (unlike tobacco smoke) carcinogenic exposures. Or perhaps that they didn't have the known alleles within a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene cluster which simultaneously made them more likely to get lung cancer, as well as, independently made them more likely to smoke (also here).

Correlations on non-randomized samples of some disease D and a substance X, especially when considreing a substance with so many therapeutic and protective effects as tobacco smoke, don't rise even to a level of hint that X causes D, let alone to a proof. Your sample size of 2, emotional appeals aside, makes your case even weaker than "well below the hint level."
  • Agree x 2

#123 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 02:49 PM

....
Lesson for smokers: don't chain smoke 90 cigarettes in a row every day for the rest of your life using 'Dontenwill-73' "smoking" machines...


I worked as a hospital orderly one summer in college. I would have loved to reassure one patient in particular that as long as he wasn't using one of those smoking machines he'd be fine. They'd removed one lung, and much else in his mouth. He was holding a cigarette to the tracheotomy hole in his throat that he now breathed through. The doctors were trying to explain that he had only one lung left, and if he didn't stop smoking he'd lose the other one and die. Silly doctors. He turned away to face the wall and continued smoking. When the doctors gave up and left I got him in a wheelchair and took him for an x-ray. I wish I'd known to warn him about that smoking machine. That was the last I saw of him.

I would have loved to have been able to tell this to the cowboy. Everyone was impressed he was a real cowboy. He'd been a sheriff in Oklahoma in 1901. He was shrunken and thin, but still well over six feet tall and over two hundred pounds. It took two of us to move him. He couldn't get out of bed or walk, but he could still light up. When his film came out of the developer, I could see the cancer was widespread in both lungs before I sent it to the doctors. The next time I saw him we put him on a cart and covered him with a sheet and took him to the hospital morgue. If only he hadn't used that damn smoking machine! He'd have been fine if he'd just used natural tobacco! Right.
-----------------

There is a linear dose response curve to chemical exposure to irritants and carcinogenesis; low doses cause the same problems, but it takes longer or a bigger sample size to show the effect. When studies used high doses to elicit adverse effects the tobacco companies jumped all over them, claming low doses did not cause any problem. Large sample size? "It's only a statistic correlation, not a cause!" History repeats itself. The first time it's tragedy, the second time's a farce.


if low doses causes at the same time useful effects (e.g. production of antioxidants) then there could be a point were a certain dose has stronger useful effects than negative effects.

the fact that the two oldest people were smokers and billions of non smokers have failed to obtain the record is a very strong hint, that this is true.

running causes at every dose free radicals which can destroy dna and can cause cancer.

neverthekess running in a certain dose is useful for lifespan.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 02:52 PM.


#124 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 02:53 PM

Should also add that smoking does not protect against RA despite various claims made here due to one mouse study. Animals are not humans.

"OBJECTIVES To investigate the potential relation between cumulative exposure to cigarette smoking in patients with or without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a positive family history of the disease.

METHODS 239 outpatient based patients with RA were compared with 239 controls matched for age, sex, and social class. A detailed smoking history was recorded and expressed as pack years smoked. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate the association between RA and pack years smoked. The patients with RA were also interviewed about a family history of disease and recorded as positive if a first or second degree relative had RA. The smoking history at the time of the study of the patients with RA with or without a family history of the disease was compared directly with that of their respective controls. Patients with RA with or without a family history of the disease were also compared retrospectively for current smoking at the time of disease onset.

RESULTS An increasing association between increased pack years smoked and RA was found. There was a striking association between heavy cigarette smoking and RA. A history for 41–50 pack years smoked was associated with RA (odds ratio (OR) 13.54, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.89 to 63.38; p<0.001). The association between ever having smoked and RA was modest (OR 1.81, CI 1.22 to 2.19; p=0.002). Furthermore, cigarette smoking in the patients with RA without a positive family history of RA was more prevalent than in the patients with a positive family history of RA for ever having smoked (72% v 54%; p=0.006), the number of pack years smoked (median 25.0v 4.0; p<0.001), and for smoking at the time of disease onset (58% v 39%; p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS Heavy cigarette smoking, but not smoking itself, is strongly associated with RA requiring hospital follow up and is markedly more prevalent in patients with RA without a family history of RA."
http://ard.bmj.com/c.../3/223.abstract


"OBJECTIVES Cigarette smoking may influence rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease incidence and may have direct biological effects on the lungs and systemically. This study sought to determine if cigarette smoking is associated with RA disease severity.

METHODS Clinical evaluations of patients seen in the University of Iowa rheumatology and orthopaedic ambulatory clinics were conducted. A letter of interest was mailed to 1701 patients who were first assigned an ICD-9-CM diagnostic code for RA in one of these clinics. A total of 857 patients expressed interest and were offered a clinical examination and 395 were evaluated over an 18 month period. Of these, 336 satisfied examiner criteria for prevalent RA and were included in the analysis. The disease characteristics and arthritis care utilisation of these patients seemed representative of prevalent cases in the general community. RA disease severity was assessed by radiographic bone erosions (graded as either present/absent and using the Larsen system), rheumatoid factor seropositivity, and presence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules.

RESULTS Pack years of cigarette smoking was significantly associated with rheumatoid factor seropositivity (p = 0.0001), radiographic erosions (p = 0.024), and nodules (p = 0.051). After adjustment for potential confounders, smokers with ≥25 pack years were 3.1 times more likely to be rheumatoid factor positive (95% CI 1.7, 5.6) and 2.4 times more likely to show radiographic erosions (95% CI 1.2, 4.5) than never smokers. Less severe radiographic disease seemed to be more strongly associated with cigarette smoking than more severe disease.

CONCLUSION Cigarette smoking may adversely influence the severity of RA in a potentially dose dependent fashion. "
http://ard.bmj.com/c.../8/463.abstract

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 03:01 PM.


#125 TheFountain

  • Registered User
  • 4,802 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 March 2010 - 02:55 PM

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.


Okinawans live longer than any other group in the world, including other japanese people. And smoking is low among them, especially the older population.

Regardless, the one who started and continues to perpetuate this thread is a disgusting troll and he knows it. I vote we dismiss his Gibberish filth and ignore this thread of propaganda and lies beginning right now.

P.S he probably works for the tobacco industry. That or he is a disgruntled, albeit delusional smoker.

Anyway, all who vote aye to dismiss his pathetic, MADE UP Gibberish say so now!

AYE!

Edited by TheFountain, 01 March 2010 - 02:59 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2

#126 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 03:06 PM

Some may have been misled into thinking the smoking will protect against cogntive decline in humans. That is incorrect:

"The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline in a meta-analysis of 19 prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up. Studies included a total of 26,374 participants followed for dementia for 2–30 years and 17,023 participants followed up for 2–7 years to assess cognitive decline. Mean study age was 74 years. Current smokers at baseline, relative to never smokers, had risks of 1.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43, 2.23) for incident Alzheimer's disease, 1.78 (95% CI: 1.28, 2.47) for incident vascular dementia, and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.60) for any dementia. Compared with those who never smoked, current smokers at baseline also showed greater yearly declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores over the follow-up period (effect size (ß) = –0.13, 95% CI: –0.18, –0.08). Compared with former smokers, current smokers at baseline showed an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (relative risk = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.31) and an increased decline in cognitive abilities (effect size (ß) = –0.07, 95% CI: –0.11, –0.03), but the groups were not different regarding risk of vascular dementia or any dementia. The authors concluded that elderly smokers have increased risks of dementia and cognitive decline."
http://ard.bmj.com/c.../8/463.abstract

#127 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,273 posts
  • 230
  • Location:Italy

Posted 01 March 2010 - 03:20 PM

My position is that tobacco smoking (at the levels of common human smoking) is good for health and longevity and I offer scientific experiments clearly demonstrating the validity of the claim.

So you choose to ignore the clear link between smoking and atheroscleroris & lung cancer, both of which are major killers?

Edited by platypus, 01 March 2010 - 03:21 PM.


#128 ajnast4r

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 149
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2010 - 06:50 PM

Posted Image
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#129 crauley

  • Registered User
  • 17 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:25 PM

Should also add that smoking does not protect against RA despite various claims made here due to one mouse study. Animals are not humans.

[...]

RESULTS An increasing association between increased pack years smoked and RA was found.

[...]
RESULTS Pack years of cigarette smoking was significantly associated with rheumatoid factor seropositivity (p = 0.0001), radiographic erosions (p = 0.024), and nodules (p = 0.051).


Why are you citing studies where the results are associations between smoking and RA (or RA related factors)? Even the study Nightlight cited notes this known association: the very first sentence in the introduction says 'Recent epidemiologic studies have implicated smoking as an environmental risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' (http://arthritis-res...ontent/11/3/R88).

There is nothing more often repeated in Nightlight's posts than that we cannot conclude (as you do above) "that smoking does not protect against" disease X, if we base that conclusion simply on the fact that smoking is associated with that disease. You are simply and obviously begging the question.

It is astonishing to me how somebody can continually ignore, forget, or misunderstand Nightlight's continually repeated main point. I can only assume in these cases that the conventional understanding of the dangers of smoking is so very deeply ingrained, since under normal circumstances this could only be attributed to stupidity or dishonesty.
  • Agree x 1

#130 Athanasios

  • Registered User
  • 2,616 posts
  • 161
  • Location:Texas

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:32 PM

I just listened to a podcast by a top cardiologist and he stated that these days practically all of his patients who had a myocardial infarction in their 40's and 50's are smokers.

My conclusion, looking at moderate smoking of cigars, was that there was increased risk of heart attack around that timeframe then 'reduced' risk of death for later years. Statistically it comes out with no significant affect on overall mortality.

Edited by cnorwood, 01 March 2010 - 07:33 PM.


#131 crauley

  • Registered User
  • 17 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:32 PM

Some may have been misled into thinking the smoking will protect against cogntive decline in humans. That is incorrect:

"The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline [...]


Wow, yet again you have begged the question. The existence of an association between smoking and some X does not support the conclusion that smoking does not play a protective role against that X.

#132 EmbraceUnity

  • Registered User
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:00 PM

It is astonishing to me how somebody can continually ignore, forget, or misunderstand Nightlight's continually repeated main point. I can only assume in these cases that the conventional understanding of the dangers of smoking is so very deeply ingrained, since under normal circumstances this could only be attributed to stupidity or dishonesty.


I think you are Nightlight. Your writing style has the same quirks, and similarly generous use of the bold feature, and now you are resorting to ad hominem. This is getting ridiculous. Stop trolling.

Edited by progressive, 01 March 2010 - 08:04 PM.

  • dislike x 1

#133 donjoe

  • Registered User
  • 153 posts
  • 2

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:06 PM

Nightlight: was "organic" tobacco the substance used in all the studies you posted links to, those that showed health improvement results?

(BTW, progressive: you're being paranoid. Their styles are different. Pay closer attention before launching accusations.)

Edited by donjoe, 01 March 2010 - 08:09 PM.


#134 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,877 posts
  • 1,559
  • Location:New York

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:19 PM

I worked as a hospital orderly one summer in college. ...


The other common "risk factor" of their rapid demise, besides smoking, was that they were both in hospital shortly before their deaths. Therefore , applying the knee-jerk "logic" of antismoking pseudo-science, we can surely conclude that hospitals kill (unlike tobacco, they actually do kill, but that's another story).

How do you know that these folks were not instinctively self-medicating throughout their lives using tobacco e.g. to help detox gasoline or paint fumes or other scientifically well established (unlike tobacco smoke) carcinogenic exposures. Or perhaps that they didn't have the known alleles within a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene cluster which simultaneously made them more likely to get lung cancer, as well as, independently made them more likely to smoke (also here).

Correlations on non-randomized samples of some disease D and a substance X, especially when considreing a substance with so many therapeutic and protective effects as tobacco smoke, don't rise even to a level of hint that X causes D, let alone to a proof. Your sample size of 2, emotional appeals aside, makes your case even weaker than "well below the hint level."


This is as unconvincing as it is irrefutable.

#135 TheFountain

  • Registered User
  • 4,802 posts
  • 222

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:27 PM

Some may have been misled into thinking the smoking will protect against cogntive decline in humans. That is incorrect:

"The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline [...]


Wow, yet again you have begged the question. The existence of an association between smoking and some X does not support the conclusion that smoking does not play a protective role against that X.


Another cigarette smoking troll trying to poison us with his disgusting, poisonous and semantically blatant falsehoods.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#136 EmbraceUnity

  • Registered User
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:31 PM

Some may have been misled into thinking the smoking will protect against cogntive decline in humans. That is incorrect:

"The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline [...]


Wow, yet again you have begged the question. The existence of an association between smoking and some X does not support the conclusion that smoking does not play a protective role against that X.


Another cigarette smoking troll trying to poison us with his disgusting, poisonous and semantically blatant falsehoods.



Yea, that crauley quote is actually logically false. A correlation between smoking and a disease DOES disprove that there is a protective effect against that disease, at least on average.

EDIT: I suppose in population studies it could be a true statement, if self-medication were occurring, but this is a pretty blatantly stupid hypothesis.

Edited by progressive, 01 March 2010 - 08:36 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#137 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:51 PM

Some may have been misled into thinking the smoking will protect against cogntive decline in humans. That is incorrect:

"The authors assessed the association of smoking with dementia and cognitive decline [...]


Wow, yet again you have begged the question. The existence of an association between smoking and some X does not support the conclusion that smoking does not play a protective role against that X.

Agree, a new user with two posts and the same trolling style. Nightlight.

Not theoretically impossible but extremely unlikely. Say you are eating something new and every time you eat it you get sick with particular symptoms. After eating for a long time you get serious permanent disabilities and diseases. The more disability the more you have eaten. The same thing also happens to other people. You notice that the more people have eaten, the more likely they are to die soon. What do you do? 1. Stop eating 2. Eat more since there is a theoretical possibility that the food is actually protecting you from the sickness.

#138 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 16
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:53 PM

Nightlight: was "organic" tobacco the substance used in all the studies you posted links to, those that showed health improvement results?


They mostly use research/reference cigarettes (calibrated to various strengths), which are plain tobacco leaves with no toppings. They are probably not organic (too expensive), although I am not sure about that aspect. Occasionally (rarely) they use commercial cigarettes if that was specifically part of the recearch topic.

(BTW, progressive: you're being paranoid. Their styles are different. Pay closer attention before launching accusations.)


Any time someone defends pro-smoking position in the treads I am debating, this accusation comes up. As you noticed (sharp eyes:), the writing styles are entirely different. English is not my native tongue but my fifth language (learned at age ~20, when I came to physics grad school in USA), my writing is a bit stiff and non-idiomatic, articles are missing or unnecessary, attributes stacked in wrong order, mixed up spelling of th and t or v and w, i and y... In contrast, the other poster has flawless, crisp high style English of someone with a PhD or equivalent, clearly standing out above anything else written in this whole thread (if not the entire forum), likely a British or Canadian, obviously a male with scientific background -- if only I could have that kind of English. Unfortunately, unless you learn it before your teens, you will never reach the fluency of a native speaker, let alone the style of the other poster.

At the moment I am busy with my day job and have only hopped in for a sec (having received an email notification about a PM from a forum moderator requiring immediate response) and noticed this silly accusation. I will be back in the late evening to dismantle any outstanding challenges, so folks, keep them coming.

Edited by nightlight, 01 March 2010 - 08:54 PM.

  • like x 2

#139 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:21 PM

if non smoking would be just a tiny better for a long lifespan than low dosage smoking then the oldest man of the world, the oldest woman of the world and the oldest marathon runner should be nonsmokers.

reason: billions of non smoking competitors had have the chance to obtain these world records.

but: the contrary is the case. the world record holders are all smokers.

of course, we know a lot of bad facts on smoking. but this relates to doses of many cigarettes a day.

we should not make the mistake to generalize from these doses to small doses.

we have to explain the fact, that the world record holders of lifespan were smokers.

we can absolutely forget the assumption that this is just a random phenomenon.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 09:23 PM.


#140 EmbraceUnity

  • Registered User
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:33 PM

if non smoking would be just a tiny better for a long lifespan than low dosage smoking then the oldest man of the world, the oldest woman of the world and the oldest marathon runner should be nonsmokers.


A hundred years ago, when these people were growing up, smoking was the norm.

#141 JLL

  • Registered User
  • 2,192 posts
  • 160

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:50 PM

Instead of these ridiculous ad hominems, can someone just post a paper where a group of animals exposed to (reasonably human equivalent) tobacco smoke dies earlier than the placebo group?

#142 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:53 PM

Instead of these ridiculous ad hominems, can someone just post a paper where a group of animals exposed to (reasonably human equivalent) tobacco smoke dies earlier than the placebo group?

See http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=387847

#143 Matt

  • Registered User
  • 2,719 posts
  • 132
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:02 PM

Calment was genetically lucky, smoknig or not, she was better able to deal with the toxins than your average person.

Smoking wipes out protective genes

A University of Rochester scientist discovered that the toxins in cigarette smoke wipe out a gene that plays a vital role in protecting the body from the effects of premature aging.Recent studies also show that SIRT1 plays a positive role in stress resistance, metabolism, apoptosis and other processes involved in premature aging. However, environmental stress such as cigarette smoke or pollution can decrease production of SIRT1 in the lungs. Researchers confirmed that SIRT1 was significantly lower in smokers who had COPD and in smokers who did not have disease, compared to nonsmokers.
http://www.news-medi...1/21/34524.aspx

also

Vasoprotective Effects of Resveratrol and SIRT1: Attenuation of Cigarette Smoke-induced Oxidative Stress and Pro-inflammatory Phenotypic Alterations
http://www.mitochond...p?pmid=18424637

#144 JLL

  • Registered User
  • 2,192 posts
  • 160

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:14 PM

Instead of these ridiculous ad hominems, can someone just post a paper where a group of animals exposed to (reasonably human equivalent) tobacco smoke dies earlier than the placebo group?

See http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=387847


There are no references in that post?

#145 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:17 PM

Instead of these ridiculous ad hominems, can someone just post a paper where a group of animals exposed to (reasonably human equivalent) tobacco smoke dies earlier than the placebo group?

See http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=387847


There are no references in that post?

You can find them in my earlier posts.

#146 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:23 PM

Calment was genetically lucky, smoknig or not, she was better able to deal with the toxins than your average person.


if there was any genetically lucky person who did not smoke then this person should have lived longer.

since there were billions of non smoking competitors we can conclude that your argumentation ist wrong with high probability.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 10:24 PM.


#147 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:29 PM

Calment was genetically lucky, smoknig or not, she was better able to deal with the toxins than your average person.


if there was any genetically lucky person who did not smoke then this person should have lived longer.

since there were billions of non smoking competitors we can conclude that your argumentation ist wrong with high probability.

Why are you looking at only one person? Studies on very old people find very few smokers. According to your argumentation there should be many.

#148 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:33 PM

if non smoking would be just a tiny better for a long lifespan than low dosage smoking then the oldest man of the world, the oldest woman of the world and the oldest marathon runner should be nonsmokers.


A hundred years ago, when these people were growing up, smoking was the norm.


how many percent were smokers?

#149 atp

  • Registered User
  • 138 posts
  • 16

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:35 PM

Calment was genetically lucky, smoknig or not, she was better able to deal with the toxins than your average person.


if there was any genetically lucky person who did not smoke then this person should have lived longer.

since there were billions of non smoking competitors we can conclude that your argumentation ist wrong with high probability.

Why are you looking at only one person? Studies on very old people find very few smokers. According to your argumentation there should be many.


i look to billions of non-smokers who have failed to obtain the world record. please do not ignore this important detail,

#150 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:37 PM

Calment was genetically lucky, smoknig or not, she was better able to deal with the toxins than your average person.


if there was any genetically lucky person who did not smoke then this person should have lived longer.

since there were billions of non smoking competitors we can conclude that your argumentation ist wrong with high probability.

Why are you looking at only one person? Studies on very old people find very few smokers. According to your argumentation there should be many.


i look to billions of non-smokers who have failed to obtain the world record. please do not ignore this important detail,

One person can be a fluke. Much more unlikely with a group. According to your argumentation many of the those close to Calment should be smokers. Why are they not?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users