It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tobacco and the Health Fascists

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


Argyll

I should also explain that I have been doing intensive research into anti-smoking for about 12 years now. I read the studies that they don't talk about.

While there are risks to smoking - the risks have been exaggerated beyond all imagination to support anti-smoking. You think Big Tabacco and Big Pharma lie - honey, these corporations have nothing and I do mean nothing on the anti-smoking zealots.

Like smoking CAUSES 80 to 90 % of all lung cancer. Lie #1 - the exact cause of lung cancer is unknown.

It is based on the impression that lung cancer occurs in people who are classed as smokers. Everyone who has smoked more than estimated 100 cigarettes in their entire life is classed as a smoker. So if you fooled around with smokes as a teenager and get lung cancer 60 years later, your lung cancer is automatically assumed to have been CAUSED by smoking.

Epidimiology has identified a correlation between smoking and lung cancer but CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

The CDC reports that lung cancer occurs in Never-Smokers at a rate of 20 %, Smokers at a rate of 20 % and Ex-smokers at a rate of 60 %

The message there seems to be if you smoke - DON'T QUIT.

Only 1 out 10 smokers get lung cancer. You would think that if smoking CAUSED lung cancer, then a higher percentage of smokers would get lung cancer! There are lots and lots of things that cause lung cancer that has never been properly investigated.

Like asthma - the money is going to anti-smoking researchers to support anti-smoking campaigns. Note how now, when they are trying to get smoking banned in parks, all of sudden there is a ton of research being carried out on the risks of second hand smoke exposure in the outdoor environment.

Wouldn't researcher be put to better use if they were paid to research the actual cause of asthma and lung cancer?

Tired of Control freaks




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Firstly, I don't believe that you're not in some way connected to the tobacco industry.
No-one can be that obstinate unless they're in it for something.

Secondly, if charitable donations from individuals and fund-raisers are classed as anti-tobacco money then I'm afraid we were guilty of it. Otherwise we weren't.

New asthma patients are all given a skin test which tests for allergies and allergens.
Guess what? Some of them have allergies to cockroach faeces etc but some don't.

You mistakenly seem to think that I am blaming smoking for asthma. Please read my posts properly.
I've said several times that asthma is caused by a combination of factors however tobacco smoke is a known contributory factor both to the development of asthma and the exacerbation of its symptoms.
One way to lessen the burden of asthma is to remove or reduce the rick factors. Smoking is easy to address, genetics and the environment are less easy.
So that's why I'm attacking smoking. Take it away and there's one less risk factor.

You say smoking doesn't cause asthma in children?
You're correct, well sort of, it can cause the asthma whilst they're in the uterus (so technically, they're not children until they come out..see, I can be a pedant too) especially if the mother smoked during pregnancy. Tobacco smoke has been proven to alter DNA Methylation in utero. Look it up.
Or is this something else in your bizarre world that is deemed safe?

You've not grasped what I said about tobacco smoke being different to most other pollutants when it comes to asthma.
To reiterate, it has a dual effect on the lungs, mild brochodilation and irritation (triple if you include the fact that since it acts as a mild brochodilator, the smoke can be carried further into the bronchi causing more irritation and damage).

I really don't understand how you have the audacity to say that the anti-smoking lobby is worth billions of dollars when the money spent by big tobacco both on advertising and lobbying is one of the biggest percentage outlays from any product in the world and eclipses virtually any other company's outlay by far.
Who's providing for the anti-smoking lobby's billions?
In the UK most of the anti-smoking ads etc are paid for by the government as the cost to the NHS for smoking-related diseases is astronomical.

You see the main problem with internet pseudomedics is that they can't see the wood for the trees. The likes of you read a couple of studies and bingo, you're an expert. Sorry though, you've made it plainly obvious that you're very far from being an expert on the matter.
Take this statement by you "People have a way of discovering what works for them. I have read many stories of adult asthmatics throwing away their expensive inhalers and relying solely on light smoking to control their attacks. Google it". Thankfully owing to my education and experience I don't need to Google it.
I've mentioned several times that tobacco smoke acts as a mild bronchodilator so having a ciggie would relieve any very mild wheeze they very having at the time. However, as I've also mentioned, this only lasts for a short time and because of the lability of their bronchi they are at a much higher risk of having a more severe bronchospasm. Then they have another ciggie and another etc etc ad nauseam until they finally wake up in the hospital after being in severe pulmonary distress caused by their main bronchi almost closing over completely.
I've seen this happen far too many times and it's a horrible sight.
Get yourself down to your local ER or ICU and have a look. Really not pretty.


But you carry on living in your dream-world where smoking is a panacea and leave us here in the real world to mop up your mess.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


To Pardon?

You say?
You say smoking doesn't cause asthma in children?
You're correct, well sort of, it can cause the asthma whilst they're in the uterus (so technically, they're not children until they come out..see, I can be a pedant too) especially if the mother smoked during pregnancy. Tobacco smoke has been proven to alter DNA Methylation in utero. Look it up.
Or is this something else in your bizarre world that is deemed safe?

OK - so we agree on something! Smoking DOESN'T CAUSE ASTHMA (now explain all the anti-smoking sites that directly say it does?)

Now as to the study proving that tobacco smoke alters DNA methylation.

1. what is DNA methylation?

www.nature.com...




here are many ways that gene expression is controlled in eukaryotes, but methylation of DNA (not to be confused with histone methylation) is a common epigenetic signaling tool that cells use to lock genes in the "off" position. In recent decades, researchers have learned a great deal about DNA methylation, including how it occurs and where it occurs, and they have also discovered that methylation is an important component in numerous cellular processes, including embryonic development, genomic imprinting, X-chromosome inactivation, and preservation of chromosome stability. Given the many processes in which methylation plays a part, it is perhaps not surprising that researchers have also linked errors in methylation to a variety of devastating consequences, including several human diseases.


Here is your study

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

and the conclusion"



Conclusions: Life-long effects of in utero exposures may be mediated through alterations in DNA methylation. Variants in detoxification genes may modulate the effects of in utero exposure through epigenetic mechanisms.
Now to be fair the study also states that children of smokers suffer more asthma than children of mothers who didn't smoke.


So there we have it. A biological mechanism that PROVES that smoking while pregnant CAUSES the children to have asthma.

of course this is all just same old anti-smoking with a different spin. Its not smoking that CAUSES asthma in children. Its smoking while pregnant that CAUSES asthma in children. To be more scientific about it so that the population knows how serious and true this all it - its the tobacco smoke that CAUSES DNA methylation that CAUSES asthma in children.

WOW - you have sure impressed the hell out of me Pardon? My tiny little unscientific brain is blown right out of whack.

Except, (like Columbo), I just have a couple of more questions so that I can totally understand your impressive scientific knowledge.

No. 1 Question: Why isn't the incidence of childhood asthma decreasing with the decreasing trend of smoking in mother that has occurred since 1975. That was almost 40 years ago. At least 3 generations worth????

Why oh why oh why are these children asthmatic and why is the incidence STILL INCREASING.

2. How do they know that the children of mothers who smoked in pregnancy get asthma MORE than the mothers who didn't smoke while pregnant?

I guess that answer to that question would be EPIDIMIOLOGY again. That social science that compares 1 group with another group and pretends that CORRELATION is the same as CAUSATION.

3. Knowing that pregnant mothers have been inhaling smoke for millenia by standing over cooking fires (burning vegetation, wood, coal, oil and even dried manuare), then we also know that almost 100 % of mothers inhaled smoke while pregnant and that the DNA of the fetus was methylated by that smoke - how come 100 % of all children 100 years ago didn't have asthma?

4. Since the entire respiratory system has evolved since the dawn of time to protect the lungs from particulate, is it possible that the DNA methylation that occurs with fetal exposure to smoke is a normal and natural part of that evolution. Further, that it explicity involves smoke because smoke has been intrinsic to human life for millenia.

In short, how do they know that tobacco smoke DNA methylation is a good thing and not a bad thing?

And finally - lets take a look at the results of this study:

elitestv.com...



The results of our study confirm the broad effect of tobacco smoking on the human organism, but also show that quitting tobacco smoking presumably allows regaining the DNA methylation state of never smokers.


Now why doesn't the DNA of those little fetuses return to normal after the child is borne and no longer exposed to tobacco smoke? Because the smoking parent smokes in the house? But its reported that 82 % of all homes in the US are smoke Free?
Tired of Control



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


See Pardon? You can throw around big old scientific words that "DNA methylation" and I still UNDERSTAND.

By the way - I used to be a registered nurse about 30 years ago but quit and went on to a different career. In my new career, I am not required to drink the koolaid and I am free to think for myself.

So you think I am obstinate on this issue in some kind of irrational way that could only be motivated by money?

REALLY - are you joking me???? I need to be motivated by money to defend myself against:

1. Financial rape
2. Social isolation
3, Loss of equal opportunities for housing and jobs
4. Social Censure
5. Loss of my identify as a middle-class, tax-paying, law-abiding, respectable citizen in exchange for being a dirty, filthy, stinking smoking who is absolutely self-absorbed, disgusting and a disease spreader to boot.

Are you suggesting that someone needs to pay me to defend myself against this outrageous bullying?

Smokers have gone along with the program for over 70 years because we deeply supported that idea that children should be informed of the risks of smoking BEFORE deciding to smoke. We are generous that way.

However, the unintended consequence of the BIG LIE FOR A GOOD CAUSE have far outweighed the benefits.

The worst one is that research dollars are going to anti-smoking when it should be going to the hard sciences.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Now to continue my response to Pardon?

You said:
"One way to lessen the burden of asthma is to remove or reduce the rick factors. Smoking is easy to address, genetics and the environment are less easy.
So that's why I'm attacking smoking. Take it away and there's one less risk factor."

Ok that is the prevailing wisdom of the medical treatment for asthma.

But there is only one problem. There are literally hundreds of triggers for asthma and you can't always see them coming.

You want to eradicate smoking because its a trigger for asthma. How is that working out for you so far as an overall strategy? Smoking has been going down and down and down. Most children are never in a position to be exposed to tobacco smoke in any but the most incidental way. As the number of attacks decreased significantly?

Do you also advocate the elimination of pets in society? After all, people don't need pets and they carry that dander where ever they go. Why not? Are smokers supposed to be the only ones who make sacrifices "for the good of the chillun?"

Do you also advocate allocating funds to combatting cockroach elimination in the buildings where these kids live? Why can't some of the anti-smoking funds go for that purpose?

Why are we still cultivating trees and grass in urban areas? Pollen provokes asthma attacks you know?

Do you advocate for bans on all wood burning, sale of candles and incense? Or is it just the ban on tobacco sales you advocate for?

The theory that asthmatics avoid their triggers to avoid attacks is really really short-sighted. What you are suggesting is that asthmatics should live restricted lives in constant fear and stress. Why don't you just put them in a bubble?

There is an alternative school of thought that suggests that asthmatics should be deliberately exposed to ever-increasing doses of their triggers under controlled conditions until their hyper-sensitive airways stop over-reacting. I do not know how truly effective this would be but gee, I sure would like to see some of that anti-smoking money go for this type of research instead of the other ineffective ones?

so how come smokers are the ones you pick on?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Now I have postulated a theory that exposure to smoke to provoke DNA methylations and decrease the incidence of childhood asthma.

To be fair: this isn't my theory. It is called the "hygiene hypothesis"

ht


The argument that too-clean environments contribute to allergies is called the “hygiene hypothesis.” Generally, the idea is that exposure to germs and infection helps build the immune system, which can protect against allergies and asthma. Some experts have associated cleanliness with allergies for several years. One study of 900 infants found that children who attend daycare are 35 percent less likely than those who stay home to develop allergies and asthma later in life. The ones who entered daycare between 6 months and 1 year of age had 75 percent less asthma by age 5 than their peers. “It’s a hypothesis, but it doesn’t explain everything, such as why children raised in inner cities, where they are exposed to allergens like air pollution and cockroaches, have higher rates of asthma,” says Kenneth Rosenman, MD, chief of the division of occupational and environmental medicine at Michigan State University.
tp://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Is+the+cause+of+asthma+because+the+air+is+too+clean&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

It doesn't explain everything but it sure explains why the less kids are exposed to tobacco smoke, the more asthma they get".

It more clearly reflects what is happening in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of epidimiology.

So how about Pardon? Based on studies that support the Hygiene Hypothese, would you ever advocate that young children be exposed to second hand smoke BEFORE they develop asthma?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


To Pardon?

You say:

"I've mentioned several times that tobacco smoke acts as a mild bronchodilator so having a ciggie would relieve any very mild wheeze they very having at the time. However, as I've also mentioned, this only lasts for a short time and because of the lability of their bronchi they are at a much higher risk of having a more severe bronchospasm. Then they have another ciggie and another etc etc ad nauseam until they finally wake up in the hospital after being in severe pulmonary distress caused by their main bronchi almost closing over completely. "

iDon't those little inhaler thingies act as a bronchodilator? If they are experiencing an attack doesn't this allow their trigger allergen to enter lungs more deeply? Yes I know that most inhalers also contain cortisone but cortisone only temporarily masks the symptoms. It heals NOTHING. why don't people who use bronchodilators end up in hospital with their throats closed over (oh let me guess, they do!!!!) Don't act as if people who use in inhalers instead of tobacco smoker never end up in hospital.

So how does a medicinal bronchodilator differ from the bronchodilation effect to tobacco smoke. Why doesn't the particulate in tobacco immediately worsen the attack...why the delay in effect.

Why don't ALL asthmatic smokers end up in hospital after every cigarette?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
To Pardon? and to all

Let us take a good look at what is happening in grand old State of California, where anti-smoking reigns supreme

Just how does the rate of smoking in the population look from about the 1980s onward.

Now this data comes from the California Department of Public Health,not from some tin-foil hat wearing, pro-smoking site populated by people in a state of absolute denial, who just want to smoke anywhere, anytime.

www.cdph.ca.gov...




The state’s adult smoking rate has hit a record low, announced California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Director Dr. Ron Chapman today. Last year, 11.9 percent of the state’s adults smoked, down from 13.1 percent in 2009, making California one of only two states to reach the federal Healthy People 2020 target of reducing the adult smoking prevalence rate to 12 percent. Smoking Prevalence among California Adults, 1984-2010


There is a graph available from 1984 to 2009 showing that smoking rates n the population dropping from about 26 % to about 12 %. A full 50 % drop.

Now obviously without all that tobacco smoking causing all that DNA methylation in fetuses, we will see just how miraculous the decrease in incidence of childhood asthma is!!!!

Right? Well from the Center for Disease Control - those famous pro-smokers, we get this:

www.cdc.gov... (Written in 2006)




Asthma prevalence rates among children remain at historically high levels from 1980 to the 1990s


OH NO!!!! What, but, but, but, California put their smoking bans in place in 1995



Since 1992, when the data first became available, the rate of emergency department visits for asthma has remained relatively stable


Nooooo, there hasn't been an asthma "miracle" in California

Um Pardon? With tobacco smoke no longer methylating those those fetal DNAs and all, is this supposed to be happening. A triple increase in the incidence of childhood asthma since the 1960s along with a 50 % drop in the smoking rate?

Do you think when the last quivering smoker has been dragged out of a cave in grand canyon and either shot or sent to a concentration camp - do you think the prevalence of childhood asthma will finally decrease or that there won't be as many asthmatics showing up in emergency rooms?

Or is it possible that you all are beating a dead horse? If something isn't working, why do you think doing it harder will make it work?

Now I am not an educated scientist or medical professional like you all but I don't think you really need a degree to connect the dots.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I am sorry, i meant to post the asthma statistics for just California and not the whole United States.

From the Center for health Statistics

www.ehib.org...

Check out page 24. No difference between California than the rest of the United States





Risk Factors

Almost 12% of adults and teens with current asthma are smokers.

• About 10% of adults with current asthma and 5% of children with current asth - ma are exposed to secondhand smoke in the home. • On average, people with asthma are exposed to 2-3



So lets see if I have this right (me being stupid and all) - this says that only 5 % of children with asthma are exposed to second hand smoke? Could that be right? BUT BUT BUT where are all the wheezing gasping choking asthmatic children exposed to second hand smoke?????

Only 12 % of adults and teens with asthma smoke - why that means that of asthmatics 88 % DON"T smoke! Asthma occurs more frequently in non-smokers than smokers. Now weren't those DNA methylations supposed to return to normal upon smoking cessation? Aren't smokers supposed to be the ones with asthma?????

And only 10 % of the remaining asthmatics are exposed to second hand smoke??? Why that means that fully 78 % of asthmatics have attacks that have NOTHING to do with tobacco smoke????


Matter of Fact - I would have to suggest that if I were doing a smoking study - I would be concluded that since asthma occurrs 78 % of the time in people not exposed to smoke or second hand smoke and only occurs in 22 % of people who smoke or unexposed to second smoke. Then the obvious conclusion is that smoking and being surrounded by second hand smoke has a clear PROTECTIVE effect.

Have I made my point yet, Pardon? Aren't you supposed to be the on who is fanatical about health. These non-smokers ain't looking very healthy to me.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I like your logic. It's also true, it proves that smoking has little to do with asthma. There is no real proof that smoking causes Emphysema either, the only relation being that some people who smoke have it.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Rickymouse - time to fight back isn't it?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Pardon?

Didn't you say, with you working in a clinic and all, that you observed that the children of smokers have the most servere asthma attacks?

What you are saying doesn't jive very well with literature.

Look at this link:

www.patient.co.uk...

Now they are talking here about the most server of all asthmatic attacks. The ones were people die. And they identify two phenotypes:




The exact mechanism underlying the development of an acute severe asthma attack remains elusive but there appear to be two phenotypes:[4][5]

Gradual-onset - in about 80%, severe attacks develop over more than 48 hours. These are associated with eosinophilic infiltration and slow response to therapy.

Sudden-onset - often in association with significant allergen exposure. Patients tend to be older and to present between midnight and 8 am. This type of attack is associated with neutrophilic inflammation and a swifter response to therapy


Now the sudden onset type can be dealt with very very quickly. No one is allergic to second hand smoke or first hand for that matter. In order to be allergic to a substance, there has to be a protein in the substance that triggers the bodies histamine response. Smoke can irritate the airway and mimic an allergic response but since there is no protein to stimulate the histamine response.

( yes yes I know that you had a scratch test with tobacco sap and then developed a welt indicating that you were allergic and the doctor said that meant you were allergic to cigarette smoke. But tobacco sap is NOT smoke and does have a protein to stimulate the histamine response. Smoke has no protein and the doctor out and out lied to you. Part of the Big Lie with good intentions.

So smoke of any kind cannot provoke an allergic sourced asthma attack.

But the first kind - the eosinophil infiltration kind. Easinophils are white blood cells that increase in concentration as a result of exposure to parasitic fungi and moulds, particularly aspergillus and candida albicans.

voices.yahoo.com...




Eosinophils (a.k.a. acidophils) are a type of white blood cells (leukocytes). They are part of the body's immune system, i.e. the defense mechanism against parasitic, bacterial, and viral infections. Eosinophils are granulocytes, which means that their cytoplasm contains large granules. These granules turn bright red when exposed to a certain acidic stain called eosin (hence the name "eosinophils" to describe this particular type of white blood cells.)


Now tobacco smoke is sterile. It contains no bacteria, parasites, molds or fungi. As a matter of fact, tobacco smoke was previously used as a air sterilizer. The particulate of tobacco smoke are sticky and whenever an infectious agent dispersed in the air comes into contact with smoke, it sticks to the molecule, causing the molecule to become heavier and drop out of the breathing zone.

So since smoke is neither an allergen nor an infectious agent, smoke cannot be implicated in either type of the most severe asthma attacks.

On what basis do you assert that kids with smoking parents have the most severe asthma attacks? Or is this another piece of the Big Lie. Smoking doesn't cause asthma, its not the most important trigger for asthma attack but hey folks, avoid smoke anyway or you will get the most severe attacks?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


You have to remember though that smoke is an adjuvant. It will accentuate any allergies that people have. It may make a peanut allergy worse and it may make a banana/potato crossreactivity worse. It makes the annotto allergy which is 25 percent of the population and some of the other die allergies worse.

I say it makes a good test to try to figure out what people's allergies are myself. These allergies are still eating at the body when there is no smoke, but you may not know about it and there could be internal damage. Kids should not be made to eat some of the stuff that they are allergic to, something that is being done a lot more today. Constantly eating these things causes a constant low level inflammation. Any smoke makes this more noticable, smoke could be used to identify and remove allergens from the diet, environment, or soaps.

We do not notice if something is slowly eating at us sometimes till it gets to be a major problem. Everyone is allergic to something. Everyone has metabolic issues with somethings, we can't always make the enzymes and the detox chemicals for an improper personal diet. I don't like the new diet guidelines, most of these do not take enzymes into consideration. They do not take phytic acids and oxalic acids into consideration. They just use basic nutrition information, which excludes many microminerals, into consideration that is not near complete.

I look at both sides all the time and try to find real cures, not treatment for symptoms. Most symptoms are the immune systems reaction to something. Adding an adjuvant increases the reaction. It causes an excitement of macrophages and other immune system workers. Too much smoking causes a depletion of the immune system chemicals and this could lead to cancer.

I could go on for another ten thousand words but still would not be able to convince someone who believes cigarettes are bad for you that they are looking at symptoms of the adjuvant and not the real problem.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Sorry, this is the first I am hearing about smoke being adjuvant

www.atsjournals.org...

But if I read this correctly. Smoke exposure and allergen exposure has to be concurrent?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



www.atsjournals.org...



In conclusion, we demonstrate experimentally that while cigarette smoke acts as an adjuvant allowing for allergic sensitization, it also attenuates the ensuing eosinophilic inflammatory response. Read More: www.atsjournals.org...


So if i read this correctly, concurrent tobacco smoke exposure may make you more allergic to something but tobacco smoke also decreases the eosinophilic inflammatory response.

No wonder many asthmatics find light smoking helpful!

This pretty blows away the theory that exposure to tobacco smoke makes the eosinopilic response more severe and completely undermines Pardon? theory that kids exposed to tobacco smoke have more severe asthma responses.

So tobacco smoke is a bronchodilator and acts like corticosteroids do? How is the effect of tobacco smoke different from an inhaler?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Rickymouse

There are more things in this tired old universe than are dreamt of in the minds of men.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Cigarette smoke is a major risk factor for a number of diseases including lung cancer and respiratory infections. Paradoxically, it also contains nicotine, an anti-inflammatory alkaloid. There is increasing evidence that smokers have a lower incidence of some inflammatory diseases, including ulcerative colitis, and the protective effect involves the activation of a cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway that requires the α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7nAChR) on immune cells. Obesity is characterized by chronic low-grade inflammation, which contributes to insulin resistance. Nicotine significantly improves glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity in genetically obese and diet-induced obese mice, which is associated with suppressed adipose tissue inflammation.


What does this do to your theory?

Yes folks - smoking DOES have benefits and is therapeutic for some diseases!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Sorry, this is the first I am hearing about smoke being adjuvant

www.atsjournals.org...

But if I read this correctly. Smoke exposure and allergen exposure has to be concurrent?

Tired of Control Freaks


That is right, if there is no allergen, the smoke will not bother a person. If you ate an apple while the birch tree pollen was out, you would get a reaction. If you breath in smoke it accentuates the reaction. The cure here is not ommitting smoke, it is to not eat apples raw when the birch tree pollen is around. Apples are usually never in season up here when the birch tree pollen is present. Now we have made fresh apples cheaply available during this time and the health care people say apples are good for you. Make an apple pie, the apple that is cooked is less allergenic. I don't have the apple/birch crossreactivity myself. I do have the potato banana cross reactivity though. I just can't eat bananas the same day I eat potatoes.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



www.atsjournals.org...



In conclusion, we demonstrate experimentally that while cigarette smoke acts as an adjuvant allowing for allergic sensitization, it also attenuates the ensuing eosinophilic inflammatory response. Read More: www.atsjournals.org...


So if i read this correctly, concurrent tobacco smoke exposure may make you more allergic to something but tobacco smoke also decreases the eosinophilic inflammatory response.

No wonder many asthmatics find light smoking helpful!

This pretty blows away the theory that exposure to tobacco smoke makes the eosinopilic response more severe and completely undermines Pardon? theory that kids exposed to tobacco smoke have more severe asthma responses.

So tobacco smoke is a bronchodilator and acts like corticosteroids do? How is the effect of tobacco smoke different from an inhaler?

Tired of Control Freaks


Funny you mention that. I smoked for a long time and it never seem to bother my lungs but it was hard on my skin and I was losing vital capacity without realizing it. I quit for a long time but have moments of stress where I will break down and go get a cigar, which I do inhale but not as much as a cigarette (yes, I know you are not supposed to most cigar smokers do anyway). Cigars make my lungs a little sore but when it happens, that's when I stop.... which doesn't take long because it's unpleasant. Cigarettes are more deceptive in my opinion and also contain more chemicals. Cigars that use natural tobacco do not have added chemicals that can include poisonous heavy metals and things like cadmium and toluene, just to name 2.

I mentioned that recently to some people and said cigarettes had more chemicals added to them than cigars made with natural tobacco, which is true and someone piped up "WHO LIED TO YOU?"... wanting to argue about this instead of discussing it rationally and considering all things. They went on to say how much more nicotine is in a cigar...well, if course if cigars are several times bigger than a cigarette... and that person smokes SEVERAL cigarettes daily. And anyway, the way I see it, the whole point in smoking is to get nicotine and the faster you accomplish this, the less smoking you will need to do to satisfy a nicotine craving. I'm not sure why SMOKERS were lecturing me for smoking but weird crap like this happens all the time. I hate talking to people most of the time because they seem to be constantly trying to dominate the situation and conversation and keep people they do not know well from talking... and it's usually about stupid crap like this and very hypocritical.

Anyway... I got tired of smoking the cigars after a few days and stopped again... as I always do and I recall how much more difficult it is to do this with cigarettes.

My point is this... The nicotine is dangerous, that's a given! It is a poisonous alkaline, but do the other chemicals help to thwart any inflammatory effects that would signal a person "Hey...duh, this is killing me" and does the chemicals contribute to addiction. I believe, as an experienced smoker of cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco ranging from store bought crap to fine tobacco... that the chemicals are very deceptive for these reasons.

I ask because what I have noticed with cigarette smokers is that when they develop lung disease, it is often something they cannot feel... like slow growing lung cancer or a case of emphysema that doesn't hurt until their vital capacity is greatly diminished... and they just can't breath anymore.

My opinion is that the poisonous chemicals MASK the destruction to the lungs... giving the user no reason why he should ever consider quitting.
edit on 15-8-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The way I think it is bad is because in the case of emphysema, one day... the natural responses of your lungs with just no longer work. Inflammation and pain are important signals to avoid something or take better care of yourself and when you mask it... just like taking a corticosteroids, it's eventually going to mess you up.

After a while, in things like lung fibrosis, the bronchi just no longer go back to their normal state... no longer working means no longer getting oxygen, which isn't painful but much more deadly than allergies.
edit on 15-8-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Ewwww... I just read something really weird about Macrophages in the lungs of smokers. They are higher and especially higher in smokers who have developed COPD, or a lessening of vital capacity.

The Macrophages are things that eat away at cells and pathogens... and they can have an inflammatory effect in some instances, but this isn't unusual because the inflammatory response is a normal body function and Macrophages are there for a reason... However, the more smoking you do, the more Macrophages you have, the more Macrophages you have, the more they eat away at your damaged lung tissue, the more they eat away at damaged lung tissue, the more you'll want to smoke to kill the inflammatory effects of the Macrophages, thereby doing more damage to your lungs, which will lead to more smoking, more damage, more smoking...rinse, repeat.

But of course crack heads also say that smoking crack does wonders for their crack withdrawals.

edit on 15-8-2013 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join