A lot of conspiracy theories are based in the who is watching the watchers routine, reminiscent of an old movie favorite Abbot and Costello in “who’s on first” which years later could be the source of connected comedy in describing the WHO and where they stand. the WHO as in, short for the World Health Organization.
The WHO as a consensus science promoter which if taken in proper perspective as the political view, have little to say in credible physical science, or in their ability to account for why they have failed so miserably with the resources at their disposal, to accomplish all that much in reduction of mortality where it is really needed desperately. Aside from the building of a huge robot like subservient bureaucracy. They continually ask for increased funding, which they in turn find creative ways of wasting while avoiding the issues, giving rise to the concerns they are entrusted and paid to resolve. The WHO has been largely ineffective in reducing mortality to any significant degree since their formation. In fact had it not been for the absolute confidence participating nations had, the WHO would have not been able to manufacture what amounts to an un necessary increased mortality due to bungling and extremely large egos of politicians, being placed in charge of tasks they are clearly not qualified or motivated to accomplish.
We see shining examples of the WHO failures to focus, in private aid agency commercials begging funding while showing us the evidence of the Who’s failures of starving and diseased inhabitants of third world countries, who for decades too long have been ignored while the WHO sidetracks itself in aid of large corporate NGO partners and stakeholders, growing fat bottom line increases at the expense of those unfortunate enough to be assigned to the WHO’s care. Creating pandemics in fat control, tobacco control, global warming and a host of other alternate paths will keep the unfortunates waiting their turn in the growing list of prior commitments indefinitely, after which [assuming the after ever occurs] they may be allotted a glance if any of these desperate souls actually survive. In industrialized nations the dissection of existing mechanisms of internal protections in the name of globalist competitiveness, are sure to bring the rest of us closer to those unfortunates. As the WHO screams for higher taxation and promotes fear and intimidations of elected officials to accomplish their immediate stated goals. All the while depreciating personal economies along with standards of living the primary determinants in health; not only of individuals but society as a whole. The WHO plows on, tremendously increasing mortality and disease in their wake. Punishing the victims of unsafe products while protecting the assets of those who produce them. Tobacco products could be made safer if the WHO were common sense driven, in regulating the products and not punishing the users, mortality and morbidity could have been decreased significantly. The new chant is “Fat is the new tobacco” Fat is not causative of a tremendous suffering waiting for a slow death from malnutrition, yet still the WHO are allowed to beat their own drum and sing their own praises while the rest of us are forced to listen and governments continue to maintain that unrelenting trust in a monumental failure, causing more pain and human suffrage than ten of Hitler’s Germanys.
All disease is easily tracked when properly defined. the WHO seems to have an uncanny ability in naming every health concern as a disease vector, regardless of how many dimensions that disease may entail. Dealing with all connections to human health as a two dimensional disease tracked by etiological, case control or relative risk perspective. This has enormous restrictions in science based credibility. Insignificant research findings should be given little weight in assessments of proof seen realistically as signals of direction. Inexplicably the majority of the assessments they produce are based entirely in this marginal level of proof. The epidemiology process can never create proof to any significant degree when the results are accepted with any positive correlation, while research is similarly rejected in the absence of that positive result. The obvious result would be, to simply not report negatives in avoiding what is determined to be a failure in the hunt for proof. As possible embarrassment in discussing the findings with their peers who have a mindset demanding no doubt exists, all reports must be consistent or deemed to be flawed. The multiple dimensions of mortality studies in non disease categories are simply not well researched in correlation studies. Non linear associations derived in this way as proposed recently by the American EPA and Surgeon Generals office adds significant complexity in public understanding and analytical methods. Use of case controls to support non linear associations in the hodgepodge IARC reporting processes simply have little weight or credibility. The level of shoehorning in respect to such disease categories as Melanomas, Colorectal, Nose, cardiovascular even SIDS thrown in for good measure and the more recently discounted cervical cancers seen as caused by ETS [second hand smoke] are hard to review with a straight face.
In a review of the IARC report which connects many suspected cancer categories to smoking and through those associations of course connected with determined reasoning, the exposure is much less however no other explanation was seen, in discounting all possible alternate causes. The use of Cox regression was helpful in asserting their case in connecting side stream smoke [ETS] to those same cancers which create a new reality in preventing surmised mortality derived of ETS, in the absence of real bodies. ETS mortalities which truly exist only in estimated numbers. A lot is lost in common sense and reasoning abilities of those involved although I am certain those lapses of judgment had a lot more to do with medical training and almost religious following in the ideal smoking is the most prevalent cause of all cancers. Almost from the time someone is old enough to understand the meaning of the word cancer we have been inundated with the fact smoking causes cancers. So much of this truth telling over the past 50 years there is an almost unanimous belief there could be no other cause despite constant research to that theory’s exclusion. In this paper I will attempt to investigate an alternate reality although I am certain the logic will neither be well received or welcome, None the less I will venture on sacred ground in seek of a new path.
Science has continued to confound the cancer experts for more than what would be considered a reasonable length of time. The insanity theory of replication expecting a different result is coming dangerously close to the medical and research community who have although many angles and methods have been applied failed to decisively prove anything substantial in the mysteries connected to cancers so on they go replicating the same research time and time again waiting for the proof to surface which agrees with what they believe. Prior to 1920, Cancers were all but non existent. Something significant happened in the past century which continues to baffle the legions of those dedicated to what that may be. The dead horse cigarette has been beaten beyond reason with no other options researched to the degree of this single forgone conclusion. The categorization of extended ETS abilities as a sole cause of all disease and human suffrage in non smokers, seems to be lacking credibility in a number of ways which will be discussed.
Cox regression seems to be the most viable method in getting to the facts by eliminating to the conclusion. The flaw is the regression seems to start with too many eliminations already foregone. Lung Cancers are an excellent case in point in following the process. Not having the numbers or resources available in a crack team of diligent researchers at my disposal, I will have to make due with what is available in the public domain.
Lung Cancer as it involves introduction of toxins primarily through inhalation, I would have to investigate the possible causes where respiratory pollutants entering the lungs through inhalation seem to be the prime suspects, In the elimination of suspected categories momentarily such possibilities as weight and inactivity although factors, would not immediately be seen to be directly be responsible for that existence of physical elements which may damage genes and start the process within the lungs. Secondary associations could include as well; poverty and race or predisposition not derived of race.
Top on my list of causative factors would be any chemical capable of causing cancers which could travel into the lower reaches of the lungs which is a common trait of the current majority of large cell Lung cancers which are the most prevalent and associated with smoking. This tendency was not always the case, when Doll connected cancers to smoking the small cell cancer variety were much more prevalent and common with smokers. The Cancer societies explained the change as the switch post 1960 to filter type cigarettes taking away the harshness and allowing deeper inhalation in addition to PAH reductions in filter use. Post filters we see small cell cancers a rare occurrence in smokers. More on that later. Possible inhaled categories would have to see diesel fuel exhaust at the top of our list The virulent nature of this carcinogen although ignored for decades it is unbelievable so little has been researched and how little is actually known. The addition to the known carcinogens list despite volumes of past evidence is surprising in the length of time Diesel has slipped under the radar, chemical rich cleaning products air deodorizers and perfumes and colognes including musk are also high on my list of suspicions. The cancerous nature of interactions of chlorine and organic materials in the production of Dioxins, adds chlorine and its growing use. For that matter all of the aforementioned items have increased in use dramatically, while cancer prevalence rose, while only cigarette use declined. This leaves one to ponder if smoking is the most likely to be the first to be eliminated although I will leave it alone for the moment. The unscientific classification of Tobacco smoke as a single product adds to the complexity of the task at hand almost to unimaginable proportions due to the possible combinations of what that smoke may contain.
James Repace made a statement to the IARC panel, the committee were concerned with the low numbers in their decision to class ETS as a carcinogen. He stated if a truly unexposed control group could be found the numbers would be much more significant. The list of case control research they considered and a meta analysis mentioned were in fact in large part flawed.
It does not require a large amount of common sense to realize; If the comparison to a group who were exposed and assumed to be not exposed, found a correlation; 100% of the result found would have to be known to be miscalculations in confounding, and entirely a result of other causes. With the new confounding weight, applied no correlation between ETS and cancer actually exists.
Many case control studies and large cohort studies which included the population group prior to 1960 ignored the fact the control subjects despite the inquiries made were poorly classified, and known to be exposed to a much greater degree than what would be normal today. Any in the control group who frequented movie theatres, traveled on busses planes trains, Those who shopped in supermarkets attended community events or conventions all would have been exposed in a few hours a week to more ETS than if they had lived with a smoker for an entire month.
It was just good manners when having dinner parties, which were much more frequent then, to offer an ashtray to guests even if no one in the house normally smoked. Men would retire to smoke after dinner for hours of war stories while the women cleaned up the dishes and had a story swap meet of their own, accompanied with drinks and ashtrays on the table for smoking guests. Twenty to thirty years later in a politically correct atmosphere, with all around them laying the blame of disease on smoking, with opinions of disdain firmly in the media daily, non smokers would predictably proudly defend their integrity in statements they did not smoke in their homes or live with a smoking spouse. The eventual use of the CPS11 study to ad credibility to ETS as causative of disease, relinquishes associated research which failed to confound for the significant error. Gyration toward denial of how things really were prior to 1960, is no great secret. This revealed case control studies including the CPS11 were entirely flawed as were a lot of pre and post CPS11 theory in case control research with no legitimate control groups defined as unexposed.
The disease outcomes may heavily lead to smoking as a cause as others thought to be unaffected would escape scrutiny and may well have been assigned to categories of mortality not included in the research when investigating death certificates within the study group defining smoking spouses and non smokers they are compared to. This may well have increased the effect of evidence of ETS harms although no assessments of other factors in relation to mortality and morbidity, would ever have been seriously investigated which could have resulted in conclusions pointing in another direction entirely depending on other inhaled exposures considered and the weight with new numbers they would compare in the individual studies to date which relied on CPS11 type calculations and conclusions relating to almost a complete population exposure to ETS prior to 1960. The current conclusions of ETS as a cause of many diseases can not credibly use the most studied group in assessments of mortality, Morbidity and the costs of smoking in the universal application of SAMMEC as a causative model. Can the conclusions made to date be justified when the studies predominantly were done in the perspective of having obtained “legitimate controls”, when in fact few actually existed within a 54% smoking prevalence. How could any who intermingled in an unrestricted smoking allowed community claim to be unexposed?
The scientific community the American medical community in particular are highly influenced also by industry. This influence along with a century of stoic control in acceptable theories has played a large part in primarily forming opinions and distributing those opinions to the public. Large industries investing 50% of income in philanthropy avoid their fair share of taxation, funding infrastructure they could not survive without. The use of these charity dedicated funds are for the most part not invested in what most consider charitable cause,. more predominantly when not manipulating stock markets when huge investments move. They invest in political activists involved in parallel charities and non profits which see the world within perspectives advantageous to corporate profitability. Permanent medical charities competing for the funds of the behemoth foundations will of course align their own eyesight within perspectives of that, which will allow themselves to be considered worthy of investment. MADD relies heavily on sponsorship of General Motors who obviously like the idea of downplaying actual mortality numbers concluding speed and dangerous driving account for many more deaths than the current public perception created through MADD as drunk driving being anywhere close to the actual death rates observed. All North American manufacturers have played up the aggressive driving excitation as a tool to increase sales of sporty and over powered passenger vehicles.
The medical reality is we speak in unison and those who do not, will be dealt with severely. Medical confidence and advancement or prominence In the field of research depends entirely on citations of leaders in the field. Acceptance into the club requires strict adherence to the approved mindset. When those leaders issue a call for more convincing evidence smoking is the leading cause of cancers the results are understandably predictable. This as awareness increases in a revolution of an internet provided information age, Is decreasing the overall credibility of legitimate research. The public can no longer define the difference between political or scientific opinion. When governments join in graying the understanding we have to as a population extend the mistrust to elected officials and in turn political systems as a whole which are seen to be corrupted beyond comprehension. An ideal situation for the small group who control the majority of wealth however the danger of that group shrinking leaves us all more at risk today than we were prior to the great depression as a result of a couple of miscues of those few who controlled far to much.
Many, wishing to be wealthy, mindsets are also driven in stock market values, even if seen as unintentional. A wish for an investment to do well, and the dream of new Porsche if that were to happen, can not be seen as totally without bias. Researchers when declaring conflicts as research is published sometimes miss the point, primarily conflicts are defined as direct funding sources however stock holdings or options are rarely if ever disclosed. All too often convenient research is reported just as a pharma group is launching a new product or seeking to increase sales through an expensive advertising campaign.
I recently reviewed a study by Richard Doll one of many he did in the field of smoking related mortality. This study completely reversed his previous views in relation to the effects of ETS. The study seemed to lack a lot of his lifelong adherence to rigid observational research seen more as a political statement than actual research as no new research was presented. The article itself I found to be a wealth of facts not common in the public domain. What I found as well was a twisting and contorting to establish causation of a number of cancers in almost inconceivable ways many when compared to each other conflicted previous conclusion determinations in stating a cause could now with his permission replace association in a list of new ETS causative diseases. In review of leukemia research of the two types Myeloid and lymphatic shown in table two in the three large studies presented, the assessment only Myeloid could be considered causative despite in the studies, anything but consistency is demonstrated. In review of one study current smokers have less risk than ex smokers and light smokers had a negative result indicating decreased risk. Radioactive isotopes and benzene, the only two known toxins in the smoke related to leukemia reinforced with an incredible statement no other cause of leukemia is known which could confound the results. The two known causes in tobacco smoke are curious in he failed to recognize a universal exposure to both exists in total population from other much larger sources. The radon daughters have been eliminated in most tobacco crops by simply restricting soil conditions, the fertilizers and pesticides in use. Dispelling a large part of the urban myth there are no safer cigarettes. The assessment of the causative nature in less than significant case control findings in addition to citation of miniscule studies including less than 100 participants can not be considered credible in assessment beyond the fact more research needs to be completed, prior to making lasting conclusions. Conclusions which will no doubt be cited in further research interpretations elevating the weights of marginal proofs.
Quoting from the report. “two known leukaemogens: namely, radioactive
isotopes of polonium and lead and benzene. The former, which derive"
principally from phosphate fertilisers, are minimal in amount (of the
value of 0.01 Bq per cigarette, of which one fifth may be inhaled1) and the
latter is likely to be the more important. According to Hoffman and
Hoffman44 the consumption of 20—40 cigarettes a day exposes a smoker
to between 1-3 mg of benzene which, according to calculations made for
the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health45 might,
over a 40-year period, increase the risk of leukaemia by about 10%.“
Some of the revealed facts included only one fifth of a cigarette total smoke is actually inhaled. This would reflect on studies which consider the total smoke toxins as a potential risk and the potentials in dose response which are often inflated. Benzene a known carcinogen is only considered a credible cause of cancer in a 40 year lifetime of inhalation in the volumes present in a cigarette . This does of course depend on a belief the entire amount inhaled stayed within the body long enough for a hazardous level to be attained. The secondary causative categories are only supported by as he states insignificant proof. He is quoted as stating a 20% increased risk is highly insignificant. Also stated in some disease categories actual incident of diseases with insignificant numbers shown will affect a miniscule level of the population and confounding effects can not be eliminated in established causative conclusions. More recent research in the effects of outdoor particulate matter in particular the study of diesel exhaust which determined may be causative of as many as 78% of all outdoor related mortality. The six cities study revealed a 26% disparity of primarily smoking related diseases in most and least polluted cities which if population statistics in the disease categories were reviewed may close the gap significantly in unexplained disparities between more and less industrialized communities regardless of smoking prevalence in viewing disease prevalence assumed to be confounded by race. Diesel exhaust also includes dioxins and benzene as does gasoline, all garden centers sell phosphate fertilizers which are also used extensively in farming food crops. These sources are without doubt significant confounders he denied existed. Most of the primary causative categories are given credibility by large cohort studies which in the most part do not question the participants in exposures to other toxic substances. None were asked how often they ride to work in a diesel powered vehicle or how many times a week they gas up their car and inhale the fumes. This would establish large exposures to high levels of benzene as one part per hundred in gasoline or exposure to diesel exhaust which is highly carcinogenic.
In the assessment of tobacco exposures the level of exposure and duration is absolutely highly associated to disease outcomes. These conclusions are observed in the 90th percentile of smokers being afflicted with related diseases in later life beyond 60 years of age. Many of the studies cited claim effect of smoking in as little as 10 years. The incidence of Liver cancers in a related report which has a few more facts to consider Fluke OV parasites which are known to be carcinogenic are linked to smoking which is said to increase risk despite also stating the prevalence of smoking has increased dramatically and only use of the larger numbers of incidence can the link be established. The same study reveals the ingestion of raw fish in the north of Thailand has resulted in huge liver cancer mortality particularly in the northern province. The culture of the ingestion of infested fish should be seen absolutely causative regardless of smoking however when there is a will there is a way. Smoking may indeed enhance the danger however in the rest of the country this does not appear to be consistent despite the fact they also ingest the fish raw however the source of fish may hold a larger portion of the blame. The study found here has an interesting chart attached which could be substantial proof in relation to the real weight of Lung cancers derived of smoking, the chart demonstrates clearly regardless of prevalence more industrialized areas of the world carry the heaviest burden of Lung cancers in startling numbers inconsistent with the theories of the largest medical organizations on the planet As smoking being the most significant cause of Lung cancers. The chart description explained here. clearly indicates the 25 year reductions of smoker prevalence in North America paralleled a continual rise in cancers in particular lung Cancers
“Lung cancer has been the most common cancer in the world since 1985,17 and by 2002, there were 1.35 million new cases, representing 12.4% of all new cancers.”
as we sit In 2005 –2006 at the peak of the predicted mortality curve associated with those born prior to 1945 and who would have been 15 years of age or older in 1960 in the highest smoking prevalence in history A group targeted in the CPS11 research and SAMMEC based on fractions created from CPS11 data the group will continue, of those who are predicted to, die of smoking related diseases for the next 14 years. A review of other charts at the same source web page reveals smoking as a cause is anything but a consistent cause in other regions. If we took a mean of prevalence per hundred thousand and compared it to the disease outcomes we could understand quickly smoking is given much more weight than it is due in the true level of outcomes it is capable of claiming, which could not exceed the lowest prevalence rate in comparison of countries not affected by secondary factors or confounders associated with exposures not seen in lower cancer prevalence regions . The theory of predisposition according to race would indicate some races are more immune than others, but only if they live in their native countries. This could seriously disadvantage those of the eugenics belief, who in misguided pride believe their genetic abilities to be superior. In light of the under developed countries their tends to be proof although they are unable to rise above poverty with lower education and lack of financial advantages, they have somehow risen above physical detriments. Socioeconomic disparities in developed countries seem to extinguish this tendency as the prevalence of all disease mortalities seems to be heavily weighted in favor of the economically advantaged in those regions although the poor far outnumber the rich and the poor live and work In much less desirable areas exposed to much higher levels of toxins.
Smoking has occurred for hundreds of years the advent of filters reduced the incidence of small cell Cancers significantly. The belief is the filters because of deeper inhalations increased Andiocarcinomas related to nitrosamines. The simple explanation in non developed countries filters are used less does not explain why small cell cancers are not any more prevalent in those regions than in more developed nations with equal or less smoker prevalence. The vast differential between countries has never been adequately explained however few in developed countries are exposed on a daily basis to cleaners and deodorizers or the level of fossil fuel off gasses as they are routinely and without concern in more developed regions. In The orient and Indo Eurasia the daily use of incense is beyond examination or the toxins similar to all organic toxins including wood burning are becoming more of a concern with the rising price of heating fuels. Of note the disease outcomes of these toxins do not have the long term effects attached we believe are associated with smoking, disease outcomes are much swifter in carcinogenic outcomes.
No political statement can undermine the deceit in the statement there is no safe cigarette their certainly are safer cigarettes a point concealed and in some cases adamantly denied. Nevertheless reduced PAH [One of James Repace’s favorite tools of fear mongering] levels in primary smoking reduced by ninety percent, all but eliminated small cell cancers among smokers. Repace in evaluating the ventilation systems at the Burswood Casino revealed in measured levels of particulate matter he refers to as RSP the PAH he estimated to be in the room at .08% or 163 nanograms a level he stated was 10,000 times known safe levels when smoking was removed still had 9 nanograms which by his calculations was 250 times the known safe Levels, despite what the rest of the researchers have concluded. The fact there is a ninety percent decrease in the inhaled smoke due to filters and the lower temperature burn has allowed the promotion of the idea second hand smoke is more dangerous. The fact non smokers are not experiencing an increase of the small cell cancers believed associated with the PAH inhalation or no large incidence occurred during the sixties when exposure could not be avoided suggests; even in the smokiest bar or bingo hall, the air dilution is sufficient to reduce the level of carcinogenic harm derived of PAH to insignificant levels. Selection of tobacco plants used, can largely reduce the second carcinogen path to large cell cancers more related to the nitrosamines in NNN and NNK carcinogens. Proof can be found in numerous research studies including a few by the WHO and American CDC which are not widely discussed while promoting ETS harms which if the product were regulated would remove most of the statistical proof ETS could ever be considered more than an irritant certainly not a significant carcinogenic risk as promotions have described.
Proof? try this on for size.
Use of a more dangerous products in both PAH in non filtered cigarettes and TSNA in filtered manufactured brands total cancers are still as with all non industrialized countries well below averages
Of industrialized countries regardless of smoker prevalence. In this case, prevalence remains only two thirds below American averages however cancers are reduced by half. In Lung cancers as seen on the chart vary by country from Eastern Europe at 65.7 male and 8.7 female to American rates per hundred thousand at 61.2 male and 35.6 female at the other end of the scale West Africa at 2.5 male and .6 female. These figures come no where close to smoker prevalence as an explanation. In third world countries smoker prevalence remains high the product is much cheaper and relieves hunger pains resulting in children smoking rates much higher than all of the industrialized countries in many cases, yet Cancer rates remain relatively low.
“In Thailand the annual consumption per adult (
=" shapes="_x0000_i1025" border="0" height="12" width="9">15 years of age) of manufactured cigarettes has increased from 810 in 1970–1972 to 1050 in 1990–1992 and of unmanufactured cigarettes to ~1000 in 1994 (1). The age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rate (100 000/year) in Thailand has increased from ~11.0 to 25.0 in males and from 6.3 to 12.1 in females (2). For comparison the cigarette consumption per adult in the USA in 1970–1972 was 3700 and gradually decreased to 2670 in 1990–1992, while the age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rate in males increased from 46.8 in 1970–1971 to 57.1 in 1988–1991 and in women from 11.0 to 24.7, respectively (1,3,4).”
“Table I
presents the comparison and ranking of tar and nicotine levels of Thai cigarettes in relation to total VNA and total TSNA. The best selling commercial cigarette brands, Khrong Thip 90, Falling Rain 90 and Gold City 90 delivered average values per cigarette for the highest smoke yields of tar (24.7 mg), nicotine (2.31 mg), total VNA (76.7 ng) and total TSNA (1,055 ng). By comparison with smoke analyses of the leading US cigarette in 1995 (which have yielded 16 mg tar, 1.1 mg nicotine, 12.5 ng VNA and 600 ng TSNA per cigarette), the smoke yields for these Thai cigarettes are regarded as very high. The current findings complement earlier studies (33,34) which have indicated very high levels of nicotine and tar in the smoke of major brands of commercially produced Thai cigarette
” In several countries, the changes in the make-up of filter cigarettes have brought about increased smoke yields of VNA and TSNA, whereas the yields of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) have decreased (22). Future investigations should lead to practical measures towards reducing the exposure to both carcinogenic PAH and nitrosamines. However, abstention from tobacco or cessation of tobacco use are the only measures of certainty with regard to risk reduction. Nevertheless, reduction of exposure to tobacco carcinogens can be accomplished by product modification. VNA and TSNA can be reduced by selecting lighter tobacco blends with low levels of preformed TSNA, and by selecting tobacco laminae and ribs that are low in nitrate, and thus have reduced nitrosation potential for amines in tobacco”
Again here
“Reduction of TSNA exposure can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA in tobacco, which means a low nitrate content and reduction of the amount of Burley tobaccos and stems in blended cigarettes.”
And here
“no correlation was observed between tar delivery and mainstream smoke concentration of N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). Therefore, although crucial, tar delivery alone is not a sufficient index for the carcinogenic potential of cigarette smoke. It is proposed that TSNA concentrations be determined for characterization of the carcinogenic potential of cigarettes with low and ultra-low tar yields and that these be declared by an additional and adequate parameter. The mainstream smoke concentrations of NNN and NNK are given by the amounts of preformed compounds in tobacco, which is dependent on the nitrate content of the tobacco and the tobacco type. A further important determinant of the exposure of smokers to TSNA is the total volume drawn through a cigarette while smoking, which is dependent on puff volume and puff frequency and which directly influences TSNA transfer. Smokers inhale higher volumes when smoking low-nicotine cigarettes, so that low NNN:nicotine and NNK:nicotine ratios result in decreased exposure to TSNA. Reduction of exposure to TSNA can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA (low nitrate content, small amounts of burley tobaccos and stems) and by manufacturing cigarettes with low NNN:nicotine and NNK:nicotine ratios.”
In fact 214 related items also tend to agree
Regulating the product will save a lot more lives more immediately than punishing the users of the product will result, in the next 50 years. The damage to scientific integrity in adapting political creations stimulating fear and mistrust in communities may never be repaired even in the same 50 years. The public no longer can distinguish between political spin and scientific dispensations a level of mistrust is forming in perceptions of both the politicians such as Repace, Glanze and Vansant who will always be politicians and perceived with credibility to match. The foundations of science and medicine singing in harmony in not peer reviewing and discrediting what is not appropriate, appear to endorse and rubber stamp all the perceptions the politicians create.
Today we hear brave little politicians around the planet vowing to punish smokers in hopes of reducing the [name a number] preventable deaths. To reduce the costs of healthcare described in SAMMEC studies. To increase the profits gleaned from abusive taxation well beyond healthcare costs with the aid of SAMMEC exaggerated more than 10 times what is actually spent in assessing wages of smokers insolent enough to retire or die prior to 85 years of age as a debt to society which for some twisted reason should be paid by smokers before they die. Those brave politicians singing the praises of hatred and discontent, sending a divided population upon itself and reveling in the accolades of WHO like self important fame.
In the wider perspective how many of those preventable deaths are really preventable and how many will in fact be reduced while the product is ignored and many places such as Canada have dropped trade barriers and allowed more dangerous products to flow across the boarder to compete with safer products which existed for decades. The lower priced products are driving regulated farmers out of business, the tobacco companies increase profits once again while consumers with no informed consent are sold a product with highly increased toxic content. The medical community stands silent and cheers the move while attempting to claim mortality and morbidity rates are important to them. The reductions in prevalence it seems will occur as a result, as with AIDS in Africa, after the majority of the victims die not as a result of proactive efforts in dealing with an unsafe product. A product which can be made much safer when ever there is a motivation to do so. A move which would be an unpopular move in the current political witch hunt environment, spear headed by industry inspired radicals. The ban fans who declare smokers have no rights to employment, housing, Medical care or even to the access to their own children. Those who demand smokers be criminalized for an addiction alone, such statements in a caring and just society with rules for other addictions, which would not allow such targeted hate in fact similar acts could themselves result in prosecutions when describing any other group, yet the radicals move forward demanding an increased level of hate be promoted in total confidence and with a stamp of approval by those same brave politicians the self acclaimed humanitarians who will seek re-election based in bragging rights for what they have done and how many smokers they have culled.
FXR
No comments:
Post a Comment