reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
How do you work out that we agree that smoking doesn't cause asthma when both of us have said it does in utero?
Are you reading or typing too fast for yourself?
You're producing lots of straw-man arguments here plus lots of suppositions of how the research both in a clinical and hospital environment are
"How do we know the mothers are smokers?"....erm because it's been asked of the mothers whether or not they did and has then been recorded. Pretty
Smoke is a mild and short term brochodilator and an irritant.
Beta-2 receptor agonists like salbutamol are short to mid-term moderate brochodilators with little or no irritant effect.
Corticosteroids are a moderate mid to long-term which prevent bronchospasm with little or no irritant effect.
So how does a medicinal brochodilator differ from smoke.
No irritants, they are longer lasting and more effective.
Therefore they have less of an effect on the overall lability of the bronchi over a period of time (if taken properly). So that's why they don't end
up in hospital after every cigarette as it has a cumulative effect.
The lability of an asthmatic's bronchi is directly related to the severity of their asthma attacks and smoking with asthma will have a negative
effect on that lability.
The link from Patient.UK you posted shows, very clearly, that a major risk factor for asthmatic death is smoking or passive smoking.
Did you miss that bit? Or did you just ignore it?
Seems like you're cherry-picking here.
I fully aware of the biochemical mechanisms of asthma thanks but one part you are constantly ignoring is the effect smoke has on the lability of
bronchi and the relationship with severe asthma (there, I've said it again).
I like the way you glibly say "Now the sudden onset type can be dealt with very very quickly"
Maybe in theory that's correct but once again I invite you to spend some time in your local hospital and actually see one happening in real time. You
won't be so glib then.
You have the typical response of a fanatical zealot when confronted with the "risk-factor" argument too.
You are also still trying to make out that I'm suggesting smoking is the only cause of asthma which I've never stated once.
What I've said is take away the risk factors if possible. Smoking's easy to address. So is "burning wood". So are "candles and incense".
If there are socio-economic reasons why an asthmatics house is unsuitable this can be addressed by social services in some cases (in the UK anyway).
The genetic side of things is a little harder to sort out as are any environmental issues. But if as many rick factors as possible can be addressed so
much the better.
But no, no, no! Stop picking on smoking (I'm not, but this is what the thread's about).
As for your stats, you say "only occurs in 22 % of people who smoke or unexposed (sic) to second smoke.
That's a fifth (not far off a quarter).
That's a lot of people.
And your "obvious conclusion" that smoke has some sort of protective effect is fuzzy logic if I'm being really kind.
Obvious only to you.
You've certainly made your point to me however I would guess that the point I'm taking isn't the one you intended for me to take.
Another thing, not once have I said smoking should be banned (collapses another theory of yours doesn't it?).
I don't believe smoking should be banned but at the same time (being an ex-smoker and living with my wife who IS a smoker) people have to be more
responsible about it.
Unfortunately, if left up to the majority of individuals, this tends not to happen so therefore blanket bans come into force.
So I suggest that instead of carrying on with your obvious victim mentality start trying to educate fellow smokers to act more responsibly about