It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh and if you paint the mouths and throats of animals with tar from burnt tobacco, then pre-cancerous lesions will develop (I don't know of any smokers that do that, do you?) and by the way - there is absolutely no need to treat oral-pharangeal cancers because if you stop smoking, the lesions will regress all by themselves
No satisfactory explanations have been offered for the smoker's paradox, the greater short-term survival of smokers after a myocardial infarction nor for the large variations in the coronary risk rate for smoking ranging between 1 and 5.9. These discrepancies as well as the smoker's paradox may be caused by different baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers, whereas the usually quoted coronary risk of 2 is derived from studies based on the assumption of equal baseline characteristics. As neither this assumption nor the possibility of unequal starting conditions have been tested, we examined the main cardiovascular risk factors in smoking and nonsmoking boys as near as possible to baseline, at the age of fourteen. This age appeared to be best suited, because boys starting to smoke early are most likely to become regular and heavy smokers. Of 336 boys, 39 had smoked 8.3+/-6.0 cigarettes/day for 15.5+/-11.2 months. Compared to nonsmokers, boys who started to smoke early had lower LDL cholesterol and alpha2-antiplasmin, greater handgrip strength, vital capacity and forced expiratory volume, better perfomance on bicycle ergometry and higher testosterone. The differences in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, vital capacity, handgrip strength, testosterone and alpha2-antiplasmin persisted after adjustment for age, body mass, and testosterone. In addition, the differences in perfomance on bicycle ergometry and forced expiratory volume persisted after adjustment for age. These favourable baseline characteristics of those starting to smoke early can explain the smoker's paradox. In addition, they suggest that the individual coronary risk in smokers is considerably higher than 2, because the assumption of equal baseline characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers cannot be upheld.
Adjustment for age and co-morbidity did reduce the magnitude of the smoking effect in many of the studies, but not all. Part of the remaining effect could be due to residual confounding, both because of measurement errors in the co-factors and lack of information about relevant risk factors. The six studies supporting a smoker's paradox have included STEMI patients, with fibrinolysis the dominant reperfusion strategy. This may indicate that there are slight differences in the pathogenesis of the acute coronary event in smokers as compared to non-smokers. It has previously been shown that smokers with STEMI have improved myocardial perfusion after fibrinolysis compared to non-smokers, despite adjustment for differences in age and co-morbidities [32,33]. Tobacco smoking is also associated with increased levels of circulating fibrinogen and tissue factor. This suggests a more fibrin-rich thrombus in smokers with STEMI which would leave them more amenable to fibrinolytic therapy  and thus an improved survival rate. All these explanations may operate in unison to contribute to the observation that smokers perform better than non-smoker after an AMI.
Post-hoc analyses of pivotal clinical trials comparing dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel vs. aspirin alone have reached consistent findings, showing that clopidogrel therapy may be more effective in current smokers compared with nonsmokers.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by luciddream
There have been too many disease attributed to smoking that have been later found to have been caused by something else.
Pry open a smoker and you will find exactly what you find when you pry open a non-smoker. So much so that the lungs of smokers are transplanted to non-smokers.
If you can't find a physical difference in the lungs, what evidence do you have that they would find it anywhere else?
If they lied about oral-pharangeal cancer...you know, the one that is graphically pictured on every cigarette pack...whyever would you believe smoking causes any other disease. Afterall, it was orall-pharangeal and lung cancer that they had the most evidence for?
Tired of Control Freaks
Only about 55 percent of patients survive five years after the transplant. Those rates are better at Bay Area hospitals, where about two-thirds of patients can expect to survive that long. Nationwide, only a third of patients live 10 years. It’s unclear what, exactly, goes wrong after the first year. Most patients die of what’s known as chronic rejection, which causes the airways of the lung to deteriorate slowly. Doctors don’t yet know how to prevent or stop that process. “I started doing (lung transplants) in the early ’90s, and it was really primitive then, and it’s gotten a lot better. All sorts of things have improved,” said Dr. David Weill, director of Stanford’s Center for Advanced Lung Disease. “But we haven’t solved the mystery of that slow loss of lung function.” - See more at: scopeblog.stanford.edu...
Lets be clear here. I am saying NOTHING! The medical community has announced that instead of incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer DECREASING with the decrease in the male smoking rate since the peak in the 1960s, the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancer is INCREASING.
The Black Lung Lie Posted on August 6, 2012 by Frank Davis A discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations: “Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.” Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.” Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.” And Brigitte even found a Youtube video: There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist. Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same: This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980′s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”. Nevertheless, the black lungs are all over cigarette packets these days.
To be sure, positive emotions are not the only ones that can be appealed to. Fear and disgust work just as well in the hands of a skilled manipulator. One Crusader, a feeder at the public trough of Delaware National Guard’s Counterdrug Task Force, likes to scare impressionable children by holding up a blackened, bloody, and diseased looking lung in classrooms while explaining that the cancerous thing came from a man who had smoked for just 15 years. In reality, it is simply a pig’s lung shot full of carcinogens and prepared carefully to look disgusting, gruesome, and scary… not a human lung at all. The National Guard Captain explained to the reporter covering the story that his lesson was made stronger “by not passing along that tidbit of truth” (James Merriweather. Delaware News Journal. 04/05/01).
Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by AlienView
My uncle smoked 60 untipped Capstan Navy cut a day since he was sixteen. At 93 years of age he decided to give it up because it was getting to expensive. A year later he was diagnosed with Altzheimers, and dead 18 months after quitting. His wife a non smoker, outlived him even though exposed to his second hand smoke, during the seventy years of marriage. She just missed her 100 birthday. They didn't have children and lived a stress free life. In a semi rural setting. Enjoying a drink etc. So I guess that non smokers live longer. Big deal.