Nicotene - the new wonder drug (why smokers like to smoke)

Hey everyone, haven't posted in years.

I'm a former 20-cigs a day smoker - I transitioned through patches to nicotene gum and lozenges. Though, for me, the quitting process was (forgive the pun) patchy - very on/off.

I'm fairly convinced that cigarettes contain some sort of numbing agent, as whenever I have quit, a few days in my lungs occasionally ache, as if someone's punched them from the inside.

This would subside if I smoked more than a few cigarettes, but would return as soon as I stopped.

When I finally quit, after about 8 years smoking a pack a day, my body spent about three weeks hurtling up as much flem, etc as it could, through my throat, nose, whatever - an endless flu. Pretty sure some of the stuff in them is terrible for you.

a reply to: GetHyped

ok - so you have no proof either.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: arollingstone

sounds to me like your body was working exactly the way it was supposed to. Phlegm is the substance that the body uses to trap any particulates you may breathe in so that they don't work their way into your lungs. Coughing is a defense mechanism for the entire respiratory system

Sounds like your body is working exactly the way its supposed to. Congratulations.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Asynchrony

I don't know very much about e-cigarettes. I understand that some smokers love them and for some people they are happy to quit smoking as long as they have the e-cigarettes.

Vaping is certainly a game-changer for the anti-smokers. You would think that they would love a break-through that makes smokers happy, cause some of them to quit, and only discharges water vapor.

Unfortunately, with a zealot you would be dead wrong.

You cannot be unaware that the anti-smokers are trying to legislate e-cigarettes just like real cigarettes complete with punitive taxes?

Can't have anyone controlling nicotine unless its Big Pharma

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I found this old study done on dogs suffering from Black tongue

jn.nutrition.org...

he minimum dose of nicotinic acid found to be curative of blacktongue was 0.2 mg. per kilogram of body weight. Since there was total loss of appetite during the curative process, the effect can be attributed solely to the pure nicotinic acid which was being administered, and not even partially to the supplementary effect of residual vitamin factors in the diet. The results with this dose level, however, were insufficient for prompt cure and return to normal weight. The lowest dose found to accomplish this was 0.5 mg. per kilogram. Subse quent dosages of 1.0 mg., 1.5 mg. and 10 mg. gave similar re sults. There was no evidence of toxicity even with the 10 mg.

You will notice the very high doses that were required for a cure. These dogs weren't smoking tobacco, they were given the pure vitamin orally and parenterally (intravenous or intramuscle by injection) and still required high doses.

I wonder what the dosage would have been if dogs could smoke?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: arollingstone

and btw - I smoked for over 25 years - then i went through a rough patch with 3 teenage daughters (parents on ATS will sympathise). Since I had so little control in my own home, I came up with the idea that smoking was something I could control.

So I quit, cold turkey, no patches, gummies, inhalers or lozenges. The cravings lasted for about 30 seconds. At first the cravings came often but with each day, the cravings came less and less often.

I was and am a 2- pack a day smoker. I experienced no headaches. No symptoms as you describe. A minor amount of phlegm in the first few days - then nothing. No symptoms.

I quit for over 3 years. When I thought about smoking again, I spent 6 months reading anti-smoker propaganda. When I realized I could safely disregard anything they said, I made the decision to start smoking again.

Just another personal anecdote. No special meaning attached to it. Just like there is no meaning to your anecdote. We are all different.

I am pretty sure that there was horrible stuff in your phlegm but since your body did what its supposed to, none of it can hurt you. it never got into your lungs, you coughed it out.

Smokers are no different. We cough out any particulate that could hurts us.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Right. It's all propaganda from the New World Order. Everybody knows smoking is a great beauty secret that doesn't make you cough all the time.

Smoking is an important risk factor for the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (Aubry and MacGibbon, 1985;Karagas et al, 1992;Grodstein et al, 1995;De Hertog et al, 2001). Smoking (Kadunce et al, 1991;Davis and Koh, 1992;Ernster et al, 1995;Smith and Fenske, 1996;Demierre et al, 1999) and solar ultraviolet radiation (Fisher et al, 1997) are known to have a detrimental effect on human skin, which causes the skin to appear older. Important characteristics of skin aging are elastosis and telangiectasia (Calderone and Fenske, 1995). Other manifestations of skin aging are wrinkling, coarseness, laxity, atrophy, irregular pigmentation, and dryness (Calderone and Fenske, 1995). Skin aging is strongly associated with squamous cell carcinoma (Green et al, 1988;Green and Battistutta, 1990;Kricker et al, 1991).
Tobacco smoking has varying effects on the skin (Smith and Fenske, 1996). Smokers have enhanced facial aging and skin wrinkling compared with nonsmokers (Daniell, 1971;Kadunce et al, 1991;Davis and Koh, 1992;Grady and Ernster, 1992;Ernster et al, 1995;Smith and Fenske, 1996;Frances, 1998;Demierre et al, 1999). Smoking was found to be an independent risk factor for premature facial wrinkling even after controlling for sun exposure, age, sex, and skin pigmentation (Kadunce et al, 1991). There was a clear dose-response relationship, with facial wrinkling increasing in individuals who were smoking during longer periods and also with increasing number of cigarettes per day (Kadunce et al, 1991). Long-term exposure to solar radiation can lead to profound and structural changes in the skin (Calderone and Fenske, 1995), but smoking was shown to have an even greater effect on facial wrinkling than did sun exposure (Daniell, 1971). Some studies reported that women were more susceptible to the wrinkling effects of smoking (Ernster et al, 1995).

LINK.

a reply to: DelMarvel

ok I can see by your link where you posted this from but it doesn't say what you quoted in the text box.

your link actually says

Smoking and ultraviolet radiation are known to have a detrimental effect on human skin. Important characteristics of the aging skin are elastosis and telangiectasia. The purpose of the study was to assess the relative importance of age per se, and the detrimental effects caused by sun exposure and smoking on the development of cutaneous elastosis and telangiectasia in a well-defined group of individuals. We made use of 966 individuals who participated in a case-control study to investigate environmental and genetic risk factors for skin cancer. Exposure measurements for sunlight and smoking were collected and the amount of elastosis and telangiectasia in the face and neck was recorded according to a four-graded score varying from none to severe. Relative risks were estimated using exposure odds ratios from cross-tabulation and logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. Among both sexes a strong association was observed between increasing age, sun exposure, and amount of elastosis. The association between increasing age, sun exposure, and amount of telangiectasia was strong among men, but less apparent among women. Smoking was also associated with elastosis among both sexes, and with telangiectasia predominantly among men. Intrinsic differences between men and women (e.g., hormones) or behavior differences (e.g., more frequent use of creams and cosmetics among women) could account for this apparent difference in the occurrence of telangiectasia. In contrast to elastosis, telangiectasia may not be a good marker of the aging skin, specifically not in women.

First sign that you are reading anti-smoker propaganda - they like to refer to study after study as their proof but quite often when you follow up on the what they are referring to - its not what they say it is!

That is why politicians are so easily mislead - who actually follows up on the references. Everyone assumes that somebody in a white coat would never ever lie.

So lets look at your link. Particularly the first sentence:

Smoking and ultraviolet radiation are known to have a detrimental effect on human skin.

oh folks - we got trouble in River City. Scientists conduct studies in order to test a hypothesis. If the data gathered during the study supports the hypothesis, great, they got something to publish. If the data gathered during the does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is declared false and we all move on. These scientists already know the conclusion BEFORE they conduct the study. Smoking and ultraviolet radiation are known to have a detrimental effect on human skin....they know the results of the study.

The purpose of the study was to assess the relative importance of age per se, and the detrimental effects caused by sun exposure and smoking on the development of cutaneous elastosis and telangiectasia in a well-defined group of individuals.

So they know that age, sun and smoking affect the skin but they are going to measure how much. But however will they tell what caused the damage from THREE factors all at once. But how will they know how much exposure each individual had - well they are going to interview the subjects and ask them to REMEMBER their whole lives and try to judge from that.

so what were their results:

Among both sexes a strong association was observed between increasing age, sun exposure, and amount of elastosis. The association between increasing age, sun exposure, and amount of telangiectasia was strong among men, but less apparent among women.

so there was a "strong association" between aging and sun and damage to the skin.

What about smoking?

Smoking was also associated with elastosis among both sexes, and with telangiectasia predominantly among men.

so it was an also ran candidate but the association wasn't strong.

So these scientists were able to look at the skin and determine what caused the skin damage. They blame sun and age but smoking may be a factor?

So far from being strong supportive proof that smoking ages the skin - what have we got - activist scientist who developed their conclusion before the study and who worked to get the pre-ordained conclusion.

This is anti-smoker 'science" pure and simple

now I already looked at Aubrey 1985 - his study had nothing to do with smoking. He was studying ultra-violet radiation and its association with skin cancer - so why are you referencing him

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: DelMarvel

Now Kaduce et al is a more interesting study in that they honestly tried to be objective

the hypothesis was: To determine if cigarette smoking is a risk factor for the development of premature facial wrinkling.

Study - they went to a smoking cessation clinic and interviewed 132 people. This is a problem the sample size is too small to be representative - however - it was an information gathering study to see if a larger follow-up study ws warrented.
They interviewed the people and then measured wrinkling in a specific area of the temple. So far so good, they are measuring a specific thing.

The results however are a big problem

For heavy smokers: (95% CI, 1.0 to 22.6) The confidence interval was only 95 %. This means that if they repeated the study 100 times - they would be wrong 5 % of the time. Scientific standard is 99 % confidence interval. The confidence interval includes 1. This is also a problem because it means that they found heavy smokers who had no more wrinkling than the non-smokers. The confidence interval is also too broad - from 1 to 22.6.

For sun exposure only: Big problem here - skin damage is skin damage. It looks the same whether its caused by sun, genetics, use of bad things like alcohol on the skin or smoking. So they can really separate damage caused by smoking and sun. The results: CI, 1.2 to 7.1) Here they don't even report what confidence interval they were working on. Was it 80 %, 90 %, 95 %? And the confidence interval, while not being too broad, is still too close to 1

When excessive sun exposure and cigarette smoking occurred together, the risk for developing excessive wrinkling was multiplicative (prevalence ratio of 12.0; CI, 1.5 to 530). again - no reporting on what confidence interval they are working to. The confidence interval is so broad as to be virtually meaningless.

www.stats.gla.ac.uk...\

A confidence interval gives an estimated range of values which is likely to include an unknown population parameter, the estimated range being calculated from a given set of sample data. If independent samples are taken repeatedly from the same population, and a confidence interval calculated for each sample, then a certain percentage (confidence level) of the intervals will include the unknown population parameter. Confidence intervals are usually calculated so that this percentage is 95%, but we can produce 90%, 99%, 99.9% (or whatever) confidence intervals for the unknown parameter.

A very wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before anything very definite can be said about the parameter. Confidence intervals are more informative than the simple results of hypothesis tests (where we decide "reject H0" or "don't reject H0") since they provide a range of plausible values for the unknown parameter.Text Confidence intervals are more informative than the simple results of hypothesis tests (where we decide "reject H0" or "don't reject H0") since they provide a range of plausible values for the unknown parameter.

Did you catch that DelMarval - according to the width of the confidence intervals in this study (which were only 95 % to begin with means "MORE DATA SHOULD BE COLLECTED BEFORE ANYTHING VERY DEFINATE CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE PARAMETER"

The conclusion should have been: we were unable to collect enough data to provide a meaningful analysis!

But hey: its for a good cause. Lying is ok when its for a good cause like getting people to quit smoking. And if I can get paid enough to pay my mortgage and then do real science on the side - hey so much the better. Its all good right?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Now its a real study and it deserves to be published. Real scientists and epidimiologist would look at the confidence interval and understand that the results were useless. But it was a hypothesis and now it has been tried and it didn't work and other scientists need to know that.

That is not how anti-smokers think though. They pay for and gather 40 or 50 of these studies. And then they announce something to the effect that "the growing body of evidence indicates that cigarette smoking ages skin and causes premature wrinkling" Then they reference the 40 or 50 studies that they paid for and everybody thinks that "SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN"

Tired of Controls

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

this is a tutorial on understanding statistics

www.students4bestevidence.net... rial/

I want everyone to notice this:

Confidence interval (CI)

Confidence interval (CI) The confidence interval indicates the level of uncertainty around the measure of effect (precision of the effect estimate) which in this case is expressed as an OR. Confidence intervals are used because a study recruits only a small sample of the overall population so by having an upper and lower confidence limit we can infer that the true population effect lies between these two points. Most studies report the 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

If the confidence interval crosses 1 e.g. 95%CI 0.9-1.1 this implies there is no difference between arms of the study.

The study I just dissected included the number 1 in the confidence interval.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This study is also a prime example of the soft branch of science called epidimiology.

Epidimiology is called a soft science because the only purpose of epidimiology is to use statistical analysis in order to identify associations between two things.

For example: it is beyond dispute that there is an association between lung cancer and smoking. But identifying an association (correlation) is not at all the same thing as finding correlation.

Epidimiology is to be used only to identify the correlation between two things. It is used to save the cost of hard science because it identifies possible avenues for research.

Once an association is identified, hard science must take over and CAUSATION must be proved.

To date: although there is a strong association between lung cancer and smoking, hard science has been trying for at least 80 years to prove causation and has failed!

another example: Epidimiology has identified a strong association between smoking and cervical cancer. It took hard science to identify the association. Cervical cancer is CAUSED by HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted virus. The association between smoking and cervical cancer is sex. Simply put: there are more prostitutes who smoke than nuns who smoke. Smokers are risk-takers. Epidimiology that smokers have more sexual partners than never smokers!

Understanding a few simple things to look for in a study will help you greatly in understanding anti-smoker "science"

For instance: when anti-smokers says that something is significance. They fail to advice the public that the word "signicance" is a mathematical term. A study may find a "significant" association but the association may not have any clinical significance. In short, the increase in the rate of disease would not really make a difference in the general population.

The association between heart disease and smoking is one such association. The risk of cardiac disease in a smoker is 1.67 %. In a never-smoker, it is 1.0%. Therefore there is a significant increase (mathematically significant) in the risk of cardiac disease for smokers (67 %). However, clinically, and understanding that the difference is more likely to be due to a sampling error (someone who used to smoke 40 years before having a heart attack is automatically counted as a smoker) than to any real increase in incidence of the disease.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

so this why I don't believe anything the anti-smokers say. I double check all their so-called evidence and the lieing that is being done on this subject is absolutely incredible.

It took me about a year of real day to day research to fully understand. But once you see it, you can never unsee it and headlines like "bacon CAUSES cancer" will never scare you ever again!

BTW - this isn't the only evidence that convinced me the anti-smokers were lying. I also followed the money. I didn't find anything that wasn't unsavory and disgusting.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No one who has been around the rounder crowd as they get older needs research to know what smoking does to your face and your health. But, of course, denial is extremely powerful even when looking right in the mirror.

To reach their findings, published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the researchers recruited 79 pairs of identical twins who attended the Twins Day Festival in Twinsburg, Ohio. Of these pairs, 57 were women and the average age for all pairs was 48.

One twin within each pair smoked, while the other had smoked for at least 5 years less, or did not smoke at all. The average difference in smoking history between the twins who both smoked was 13 years.

All twins were required to have professional photographs taken in close-up of their face, as well as complete questionnaires regarding their medical history and lifestyle.

In order to determine specific areas of facial aging that may be affected by smoking, judges who are specialized in monitoring the signs of aging analyzed the twins' facial features from the photographs without knowing details of their smoking history.

During this process, they analyzed the gradients of the twins' wrinkles and other facial features that may be affected by aging, including the presence of bags under the eyes and lower eyelid skin discoloration. Each type of wrinkle and age-related feature was given a score for its severity.

'Significant signs of aging' found in lower part of face
Findings revealed that twins who smoked had significantly higher scores on the majority of the measures for facial aging.

Smokers demonstrated more sagging of the upper eyelids and more bags of the lower eyelids and under the eyes. They also had higher scores for facial wrinkles, specifically wrinkling of the upper and lower lips, sagging jowls (lower part of the cheek), and more pronounced lines between the nose and mouth.

LINK.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
For example: it is beyond dispute that there is an association between lung cancer and smoking. But identifying an association (correlation) is not at all the same thing as finding correlation.
Tired of Control Freaks

There's an "association" between inhaling noxious smoke into your lungs for years and developing lung cancer but only lying anti-smokers say it's a causal relationship.

Those are the same liberal do-gooders who started using the phrase "coffin nails" 150 years ago.

Keep telling yourself if that makes you feel better. You might be hooked up to an oxygen tank but at least you won't have Alzheimer's, right?

a reply to: DelMarvel

Well thank you very much

But before you start condemning me to lung cancer you should know something.

Anti-smoking campaigns started in the 1960s. Fifty million americans made the decision to quit smoking based solely on this advise and no undue harassment recommended by the anti-smoker campaigns.

Now that is about 1/2 the smoking rate in the population. Now the people that were in the 20s and 30s back then are now in the 60s and 70s. Funny thing about lung cancer. Its a disease that strikes everyone mostly in their 60s and 70s (meaning that generally, dispite sucking up all those toxins for 50 years - smokers don't get lung cancer at a younger age than never-smokers). That is generally a pretty good indication that smoking is not necessarily the primary cause of lung cancer.

So has the rate of lung cancer decreased in line with the rate of decreased incidence of smoking in the population?

Now to see the truth here - you have to be aware of what data you are looking at! There has been a decrease in the lung cancer mortality rates (death by lung cancer) but that simply indicates that with earlier detection and better medical treatments available, more people are SURVIVING lung cancer.

But what about the INCIDENCE of lung cancer. Is lung cancer occurring less frequently than in the 1960s in line with the massive decrease in smoking?

If smoking was the CAUSE of lung cancer and you take smoking out of the equation - why then it just makes common sense that lung cancer incidence rates will decrease.

seer.cancer.gov...

Keeping track of the number of new cases, deaths, and survival over time (trends) can help scientists understand whether progress is being made and where additional research is needed to address challenges, such as improving screening or finding better treatments.

Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new lung and bronchus cancer cases have been falling on average 1.5% each year over the last 10 years. Death rates have been falling on average 1.8% each year over 2002-2011. 5-year survival trends are shown below the figure.

Now read the second paragraph very very closely - They are talking about trends over time and they show the trends on 1 line and then they shows deaths on the second line.

And they state categorically that new lung and bronchus cancer cases have been falling on average 1.5 % each year over the last 10 years. Did you catch that? 10 years!!! but the graph goes back all the way to 1975???????

Remember Male smoking peaked in the 1960s, female smoking rates peaked in 1975. Surely to god - the decrease of lung and bronchus cancer rates have gone done significantly since 1975????

Now click on the link to see the data table - this is what you will see (sorry I can't cut and paste a table)

In 1975 the incidence rate of lung and bronchus in the US was 52.2 per 100,000. In 2011, it was 55.5 per 100,000

The rate of lung and bronchus caner has INCREASED despite the huge decrease in smoking

Go ahead - wish me a death of lung cancer. To be honest, people with lung cancer survive about 6 weeks after diagnosis. That is enough time to get your affairs in order and say your goodbys. People with Alzeimer's may linger and rot for 10 or 20 years before they finally get the sweet release of death.

But remember this buddy - you may be condemning yourself (a non-smoker or a never-smoker) to the same death.

More tricks by anti-smokers. Compare incidence rates with mortality rates to confuse the public into thinking lung and bronchus cancer rates are going down and the anti-smoker campaign has been a huge success. Claim decreases in rates only by comparing current rates with the rate of years where it was down slightly.

LIE LIE LIE

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It has been 50 years since male smoking peaked. It has been about 40 years since Female smoking peaked.

So when exactly does anyone expect the incidence rate of lung and bronchus cancer to start decreasing?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: DelMarvel

oh and this ridiculous study you posted???? Has it occurred to you that the subjects may have been twins but that does not mean they lived the same lives. One twin may have been an outdoorsy kind with lots more sun exposure and the other may have been indoorsy.

Further, its real easy to doctor photographs by simply altering the lighting just a little bit or slightly changing the angle of the shot, especially if your a professional photographer.

Simply wearing a more flattering colour of clothes can change your appearance. When some people wear beige, they have bags and dark shadows under their eyes. But put them in white and they lose 10 years.

I can't even pretend this is an actual scientific study.
Tired of Control Freaks