kismet, on Mar 6 2010, 10:56 AM, said:
/car·ci·no·ge·nic·i·ty/ (kahr″sĭ-no-jĕ-nis'ĭ-te) the ability or tendency to produce cancer" TS increased cancer, by whatever means, therefore it is a carcinogen or cancer-promoter (and that is using your own logic!)
As argued above in #372
, the effect observed in those mice & rat experiments is fully consistent with pure angiogenic effect of TS (nicotine, especially when amplified with low dose NO from tobacco smoke, is a potent angiogenic agent (no pharmaceutical comes even close) acting through upregulation of VEGF and bFGF angiogenic factors, possibly few more).
Carcinogenic effect requires causal role in the production/etiology
of cancer. They have not demonstrated any such effect since they disregarded
and failed to quantify (or to even merely mention in order to dismiss it under some pretext) the strong vascular redistribution
process, which in turn induced corresponding redistribution of the tumor growth rates
, which has the same pattern as the observed tumor distribution (more respiratory tumors, fewer other tumors). Since their explanation
had to discard some known facts (angiogenic effects & failure to account for it), i.e. they had to drop the known data points
, in order to weave their self-serving TS-is-carcinogenic narrative, their model is inferior to angiogenic model
, which uses all data points
, i.e which does not have to discard any established facts or observations. Any angiogenic agent taken via inhaler will produce similar redistribution of tumor growth rates.
Note also that in F344 rat case, the LS group had fewer malignancies in the lungs i.e. despite better angiogenesis in the lungs, the TS had revealed a separate global tumor suppressing effect. This same protective/anticarcinogenic effect of TS was observed in experiments that didn't impose so-called "recovery period"
(abrupt quitting; see post #277
for discussion and experiments for this effect).
Angiogenic agents are not carcinogens. If you were to now stretch semantics of 'carcinogen'
to include any angiogenic agent
, using a rationale that improved angiogenesis helps cancer grow after the onset of the expansion phase, then you could include by the same rationale nearly everything you ingest since that provides building materials and energy that helps cancer grow, too. In such semantics, an apple is carcinogenic, too, since it provides sugar, minerals, and anything else cancer cells need to grow and multiply (after all, the cells of apple have everything another cell, cancer cell included, may need to do all their 'cell stuff'). The nutrition provided by apple and enhanced angiogenesis provided by tobacco smoke are both beneficial effects. Yet, after the onset of cancer, these benefits become coopted by the cancer cells
and they end up helping it grow. Similarly, what was extremely harmful to body prior to cancer
, such as chemo drugs, radiation, limb amputations, ectomies of various organs,... becomes life saving
In other words the value system of 'harmful' and 'beneficial'/therapeutic, is flipped upside down in a body with cancer
. Antismoking propaganda thrives on playing transparent little semantic games around this value flip, e.g. by pointing at the angiogenic effects of TS as some horribly harmful effect, by describing it chiefly in the context of growing cancer. Another favorite target of these silly games is another beneficial, life-extending effect of TS -- the upregulation of telomerase
by TS, normally a holy grail of life-extension and rejuvenation, but which is only brought up in the context of cancers and the obvious harm the effect produces (if it were all by itself the sole effect in isolation)... etc.
In fact it was precisely through enjoying these 'scare stories' about how bad TS effects are in the context of lung & other cancers, and by flipping their value system upside down
i.e. by considering the same effect in non-cancer/healthy state, that I found backing in literature for the most interesting and most beneficial effects
of tobacco smoke. Cancer is a kind of a misguided attempt to recapture the lost youth
and start all over, guided unfortunately by much too primitive back-to-nature vision
(we have quite a few of such 'pre-cancerous lesions' within our social organism). Consequently the TS effects discovered within the context of lung cancer, tend to be mostly those of rejuvenating and life-extending kind
and they are of that general type in non-cancer/healthy state for which they were meant and optimized in the first place. Cancer is merely an attempt of cooption by the 'back-to-nature' insurgency of this miracle medicine which cannot be coopted. The cooption invariably fails (although cancer may prevail anyway, without the help of TS) because there are too many built in safeguards
, preventing it from doing harm to smoker.
These safeguards become evident
when you recall that in animal experiments even in cancer states, the smoking animals still outlive the non-smoking ones
, 'scare stories' notwithstanding Even a stronger safeguard has manifested in the F344 rats experiment for the LS group (similar to highest human dosing, although still highly oppressive compared to human smoking, due to near-MTD concentrations, lack of self-dosing and pacing feedbacks, and without short cycles, like puffs, cigarettes). The LS group had even fewer respiratory malignancies
than the controls (and of course, fewer of all others, too), despite the redistributive angiogenic effect of TS[/b] which is the strongest in the respiratory system. Having learned this lesson from the rats experiment, in their mice experiment that followed researchers simply dropped HS & LS male and LS females groups, all the anomalous tables that were getting too embarrassing to show in public and that would have complicated immensely their antismoking narrative, keeping only the HS females mice, by far the worst off smoking group from the rats experiment (due to extreme, asphyxiating overdose). Yet despite all precautions with HS female mice, the overdosing above the MTD, yet they still somehow outlived the non-smoking females. That's how hard it is to outwit this medicinal magic and coerce it to do harm, when it is obeying the three "you may not injure...
" class of laws encoded into its biochemical networks by the gods long forgotten. The experimenters above had ran afoul of the 2nd law, as did many before them.
To clarify some more the situation above, lets step one level up in the hierarchy
of networks (see on general intelligent networks
and application to our context here, posts #324
), from the biochemical networks making our bodies to the social networks
i.e. to society as a whole, which is a higher level intelligent organism, a purposeful anticipatory system
in pursuit of its own happiness just as you or I do (in the conventional language, this superorganism is labeled as god, its 'mind stuff'' as holy spirit, its gamete is the 'son' of the trinity,...; this works also down from you, as a social superorganism of the society of cells making up your body...).
From perspective, where human individuals are cells of the social superorganism
, vascular system is the ground transportation system (roads, bridges, railways, tunnels). Normally we consider good transportation system, its maintenance, upgrades beneficial to society. Yet, if there is a war or insurgency or rebellion, suddenly the old benefits becomes liabilities, since they allow enemy to transport their own forces and conquer us quicker. Indeed, had France at the start of WWII been less developed, such as Balkans (that didn't have many usable roads for panzers, or much of infrastructure of any kind), Germans would have had much harder time conquering them into submission. Now the antismoking argument against angiogenic effects of TS is like someone in a country arguing that we ought not to improve our roads, build new ones, maintain our infrastructure in order,... because if there is a war or insurgency, the hostile forces will use them against us, hence we are better off, in peace time (analogous to normal, pre-cancer life) letting them fall apart and stop expanding & improving them. So, by watching those kinds of semantic games at this level, where we as individuals are actually 'cells' of the superorganism, the sterile vapidity of such self-serving rationales becomes crystal clear.
You really need to read up on your biogerontology and the importance of dietary restriction.
I think CR is overrated. It barely gets life-extensions bit above these TS ones. Considering that TS experiments are highly optimized
over decades of iterations (see that "recovery period"
analysis) to desist that very life-extending effect
and to cause the maximum harm
to animals via inhalation of TS, the best these experienced researchers knew how. And that is in 2004-5 experiments, with half a century of tuning the scheme and still no luck. The edge of asphyxiation smoke concentrations, unnaturally oppressive smoke for 6 hours with no letup to alternate air and smoke as humans smoke, no feedback driven self-dosing and self-pacing, no nested cycles... I am amazed that those rodents did so well e.g. in 250 mg/m3 female mice (the worst case for TS from rat study), right at the edge of asphyxiation, at the end of experiment, there were 47.3% live smoking mice and 19.9% nonsmoking mice.
The same research group did also diesel fumes
inhalation tests, labeled as having much higher concentrations than any normal human exposures. The particle density here in "low" group was 0.35 mg/m3, while tobacco "low" group was 100 mg/m3, i.e. "low" tobacco had 286 times greater concentration of particles.
So, this was maximally adversarial research
for TS, optimized for maximum harm. Had it been optimized for maximum benefit (especially if tuned for decades), it wouldn't surprise me if instead of 20% longer the smoking mice ends up living 40% longer. Humans smokers obviously optimize for maximum benefit (guided by natural biological feedbacks).
The main practical objection to CR, though, is that it is low a energy, low intensity, semi-hybernated life, biologically suspended in waiting for better times. I would guess also that it is a low mental throughput and performance, low dopamine, low ACh type of state. At least that's how some TV interview that I accidentally ran into struck me. I I just wouldn't care to be in such state even if it would formally gain clock-years
, since it would surely lose life-years
, in my accounting where the number of bits of information flowing in and out are the bonus points
I seek to maximize.
The fundamental objection
to general pursuit of that kind is that I don't share view that either subjective 'self' or its physical implementation (as a given body), is what is to be kept
, or can be kept, persisting as the same kind of entity. The pattern of activity making up self which is seeking immortality is meant to unfold in stages, into a larger pattern at a new level, which doesn't look anything like the little pattern that spawned it, just as you don't look anything like the fertilized egg that unfolded into your present pattern. Each of us is a shot toward spawning an immortal being, and as with gametes that were to become you, the self needs to become 'fertilized'
before the next phase can begin. For us talking here at this level of existence, the conventional name for this 'fertilization' is 'enlightenment' (or cosmic consciousness,... the names vary, but the essence is the same). In this state the 'self' is suddenly seen as a little activity pattern implemented on a little fragile, transient biochemical network, your current body (brain is one of its subnets), which is going to perish in just a flicker, one way or another, whether it is 1.0 flickers or 1.2 flickers or.8 flickers, it comes down to a flicker no matter what you do. The process of unfolding of 'self' into your next 'Self' is essentially a process of recoding the 'self' pattern
from the little fragile network, which is about to be gone in a flicker, into a larger, live, intelligent pattern, unfolding within the superorganism, the new substratum for its next physical body and 'mind stuff'. Superorganism is an intelligent network, just like your own current implementation of self, except that this one is incomprehensibly more powerful natural computer and a far more durable hardware than your present one. As the process of recoding proceeds, it unfolds spontaneously by its own will and laws that are beyond the grasp of the little 'self''. The latter will continue dissolving as the 'Self' is becoming more alive and more aware. And then, the flicker has just gone by as if nothing of importance has happened, the little 'self' and its fragile vehicle are no more, and new 'Self' is now all on its own, a pulsating, ephemeral pattern, uncertain and quivery in a world unknown, but alive an awake
Smoking -> reduces calorie intake -> reduced calorie intake extends life. So, why not bypass the redundant smoking step and just eat less? I mean you just wrote yourself that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen. Whether directly or indirectly via nicotine, doesn't matter when using the correct and straight-forward definition of 'carcinogen'. Just eating less is considerably cheaper and safer, isn't it?
While there is some overlap between the two approaches, they are different in too many ways to even remotely be reducible to the other. CR effect of smoking is a mere unimportant, mostly unnoticed side effect of simply being able to go on, too busy with life, to get hungry all that often or to bother with concerns about food. I haven't stepped on a scale in years, have no idea what I weigh. As long as I fit in the jeans and shirt that's good enough and it isn't worth further attention or time. I don't even know how many cigs I smoke per day or worry about it. I make (stuff tobacco into non-filtered tubes using a little stuffing machine; smoked through cigarette holder) 3-4 at a time, smoke when my biochemical networks signal -- next. When they're gone I make another few. In late evening, when phones are quiet for the day, I go to a closet with collection of all kinds of fancy tobaccos, with names like Gauloises, Black Death (with big skull and crossbones on the pouch), Manitou, Ryback, Samson,... and make one to be enjoyed for its own sake, in a complete peace when time doesn't matter and nothing else is going on, but a bluish smoke leisurely swirling toward the ceiling, an impish flutter every now and then from the gods long forgotten.