Smoking and heart disease

Great Debates
21

This is way off the topic of the original post, but, here goes.

Carol, the factory where I used to work for many years used asbestos for assembling buttons (parts of multi-focal lenses) so that when the buttons were sent through the furnace to fuse, the asbestos strips holding them together would not burn. My friend, hearing about this, told me that her father had died of cancer that was supposedly caused by working in the shipyards in WWII, where he had been exposed to asbestos. I made some phone calls and asked some questions at work, and after that, anyone who came in contact with asbestos was given yearly respiratory exams at the local hospital. And after that, they would not put any new worker who smoked into the button room, because according to statistics they had (this was in 1975),
people who both worked with asbestos and smoked had a greater health risk than those who did not.

Casdave made a good point in mentioning actuaries and insurance companies. The company I worked for was acting under the advice of their workers’ compensation insurance company, and that company did not want to be paying out big bucks on claims.

I suppose it is possible that there is a big anti-smoking conspiracy, but what would be the purpose? Why would people invent statistics and skew studies to target smokers? There have been whistle blowers within tobacco companies in recent years that have admitted that chemicals to make cigarettes more addictive have been added to cigarettes. And while it is true that statistics can be manipulated and used for special interest groups’ own ends, why would smoking be targeted without good reason?

Also Carol, have you got any statistics refuting the correlation between mouth cancer and tobacco chewing?

It just seems that there are too many studies linking tobacco and cancer for it just to be coincidental.

I hadn’t heard about the cervical cancer thing, though. I don’t see how that case could have been won since there is lots of evidence linking cervical cancer to HPV. That does sound like ineptitude on the part of the tobacco companies’ lawyers, although I should probably check out some search engines myself to read about it.

Carol, if the evidence you presented here had been presented by someone who does not have “Smokers’ Rights” listed under interests in her/his profile, I would have been more inclined to take it seriously. It could be that you are right about the anti-smoking conspiracy; stranger things have happened. But it appears that you are only reporting evidence that coincides with what you want to believe, and ignoring or discounting everything else.

22

Spider Woman, I have to take a little issue with your criticism of Carol Thompson. So what if she lists “smoker’s rights” as one of her interests? That in itself does not say anything about her character or the validity of her arguments. Sure, we’ve all heard about the tobacco lobby et al, but there are also regular people who have a vested interest in the outcome of laws favoring one side or the other. Some see anti-smoking legislation as an unfair attack on their freedom. And there are people pushing for restrictions on smokers, because cigarette smoke is annoying (disgusting, bad smelling, spreads without control, affects asthma, etc). If I’m an anti-smoker because it smells bad, does that mean my arguments about medical results are invalid? (No, I may or may not have valid arguments, but you can’t tell that just by which side I’m on.) Calling her in question just because she’s interested in protecting her rights as a smoker is specious. Either her claims are valid or they are not. Either the data shows some cancers are more viral related and the interpretation of smoking as the cause is distorted, or not. If not, show that.

Let’s keep this aimed at the issues. Carol has come on a little strong, but generally has contained herself to trying to propose her criticisms of the anti-smoking lobby. Let’s keep the discussion about the medical results, and actions by the different lobbies, and not get into name calling. If you can show Carol distorting results, do so. If Carol begins to get fanatical and refuses to address issues, then it is time to evaluate participating in the thread. But we aren’t there yet, and we can keep from going there.

Carol, I don’t really know anything about the topic. You raise some interesting questions. I’m not a smoker, and don’t particularly like having smoking around me, but I also am for the truth. If the doctors are not on the right track, how can they cure/prevent the diseases? Better to take the political hit of being wrong and cancer not being affected by smoking and find the real causes, vs. fighting to retain a mistaken cause and failing to improve our health. But I’m not saying I believe you yet, either.

23

I re-read my posts, and I don’t believe anything I said to Carol was name-calling or calling her character into question. If any of what I said could be construed that way, I apologize. If I believe that the information she presents may have a pro-smoker bias, that doesn’t mean I think Carol is a bad person.

I would probably tend to have a live-and-let-live kind of bias: if you want to smoke, don’t do it around people who don’t want to smell it or breathe the second-hand smoke, for whatever reason.

When I was a child, my mother smoked around me constantly and it didn’t bother me, because I had never known anything else. It doesn’t bother me much now, but I ask that people step outside to smoke at my house, because I don’t like the smell it leaves on clothes and furniture.

As for the medical evidence, I don’t think it’s all in yet, and there are opinions on both sides that would interest me. I believe that in the case of my mother, if she had not smoked, she would probably still be alive today, and her doctors believed her lung cancer to be caused by smoking cigarettes.

24

I believe that at this point the discussion is removed enough from the Straight Dope column that it should be moved to a more appropriate area of the SDMB. Therefore, this thread is leaving the Comments on Cecil’s Columns forum and going to visit my colleagues DavidB and Gaudere in the Great Debates forum.

25

And why Carol should it be that when I call my insurance company for a quote that they ask me wether I am a smoker or not?

Why are their policies weighted against those who work in environments that are smoke filled?

I do not really care if you choose to ‘defend your rights as a smoker’ as my rights as a human being not to have my life shortened by the thoughtlessness self-interest of the average smoker will always outweigh the so-called freedom to shorten my life.

Which infections cause cancer?
Cite please.

Why are bronchitis and smoking so closely correlated when it is known that there are other causes of the condition such as infection?

Now why would they do such a thing if it would exonerate their products?
Only answer I can come up with is that they were worried that it might not.

Please explain to me why smokers live on average shorter lives than those who do not.

If you can then I suggest that you advise all the medical insurance industry that they have been wrong for the past twenty or so years.

My original post was simply “here is a web site go and look”, you will note that I made no recommenedations one way or the other, simply an invitation to look and make your own mind up, but you have decided that, innoffensive as this might be, you must attack the person who put that up.
You will of course note that in the OP I made no claims at all but said that “it was thought by those who know better than me…”

In the UK health plan for the next 5 years published by the government it states clearly that one of the goals is to reduce the number of heart attacks and smoking related illnesses by reducing smoking by a certain number of percentage points.
Now unless you think that the UK medical establishment know less about the causes of heart diseases than you I would tend to put my faith in them rather than concern myself with the information that a pro-smoking lobbyist cares to promote.

26

quote:

The anti-smoking health establishment has systematically suppressed research into the possible role of viruses in lung cancer since the 1950s.

Now why would they do such a thing if it would exonerate their products?
Only answer I can come up with is that they were worried that it might not.
Please ignore this comment as I was not paying proper attention when I made it.

27

Spider woman has recited a list of very poor reasons for either believing or disbelieving.

The line that “Why would smoking be targeted with no good reason?” is reminiscent of the line, “Why would Jews be targeted with no good reason?”

Anyone should be able to see the messianic zealotry of the anti-smoking movement. It masturbates their egos to indulge in the fantasy that they’re saving the world. The bigger the lies they tell, the more worked up with self-righteousness they get. They persecute innocent people to make themselves feel good, which is the vilest form of corruption of all.

Re the statement that “It just seems that there are too many studies linking tobacco and cancer for it to be just coincidental:” Nobody has said that it is “just coincidental,” particularly not me.

I have said that the anti-smokers purposely use defective studies to falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. And, that they get away with this because people in the lower socioeconomic levels are more likely to have these infections, and a greater proportion of smokers are in the lower socioeconomic groups.

And all the “ignoring and discounting” has been done by the anti-smokers, not by me. THEY are the ones who refuse to address the issue of confounding by infection. They are the ones who have concealed their own studies to hide the truth that exonerates smoking (i.e., the NINDS Collaborative Perinatal Study of 45,000 placentas).

The things I have had time to write about are on my website,
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/

Also that line that “there have been whistle blowers within tobacco companies in recent years that have admitted that chemicals to make cigarettes more addictive have been added to cigarettes” displays nothing but vast incomprehension.

If this refers to nicotine, so what? Nicotine levels vary between cigarettes. If a cigarette has too much nicotine for an individual smoker’s taste, they take smaller puffs or change brands. That whole accusation is nonsensical, and can be believed only by those who approach the subject with large amounts of both ignorance and malice.

It is likewise about the red herring over ammonia. Adding ammonia to cigarettes only makes them harsh, like pipe tobacco, which virtually no one inhales. And a smoker who considers a cigarette harsh will change brands. Once again, this story is only credible to those endowed with large amounts of both ignorance and malice.

28

casdave:
The reason that insurance companies make smokers pay more for having shorter lifespans is that they can get away with it. If they tried to charge black people more for having shorter lifespans, they would get a civil rights lawsuit.

And the hypocrisy is that the main reason that both smokers and blacks have shorter lifespans is that they are more likely to have those infections which cause heart disease and cancer – about the treatment of which the insurance companies couldn’t care less.

The only thing insurance companies care about is MONEY, so anyone who would take their behavior as proof of medical competence would be foolish to say the least. They’d deserve to have DenialCare for their HMO if you catch my point.

29

The UK medical establishment in general, and the BMJ (as the British Medical Journal is now known), is NOT telling the truth that smoking causes heart disease. Even their vaunted British Doctors study didn’t show such a thing; all it showed is that non-smokers mere die of heart disease a few years later than smokers. And that is consistent with the infection hypothesis.

And, they are in a state of denial about Chlamydia pneumoniae. They made a big deal in a recent issue about a study which analyzed serum antibody levels to CP versus heart disease, which found no association. Well, it was already known from autopsy studies that found active CP infection that were not reflected by elevated antibody levels, that antibody levels are not a good indicator of active CP infection. C-reactive protein, which is a nonspecific response to tissue injury, has generally been a better index of heart disease risk. But it does not tell what has caused it.

30

It has been recognised that the lower socio-economic groups tend to live shorter lives and a whole host of reasons have been put forward, from poor eating habits, which is not necassarily related to income but more likely poor education, through to having a more stressful existance and also includes smoking.

What I do know is that smoking causes smokers to start the day coughing and gagging, that it makes my eyes sting and that very few of the top athletes would think of doing it.
I also know that when people stop smoking their appetite increases and they put on weight, which is apparently why many young girls take it up.Years and years of appetite supression does not seem the way to a healthy lifestyle to me.

Even if I were to completely discount all the studies for and against smoking I can easily recognise the problems that smokers have from the obvious signs.

That is aside from the financial cost of the habit(your choice) the smell that sticks to clothes and the damage to furnishings and decor(again your choice) and the fact that most fire prevention departments will say that smoking is a cause of around 20%-30% of all domestic fires.

I only mention the UK medical establishment because that is where I am from but it is a fair assumption that most other national medical estblishments have the same view,
so who do I trust?
Some person on an internet site whom I will never meet but has an axe to grind, or my family GP backed up by the whole of our health service?

What you have put up so far is that there is some sort of global conspiracy between just about all the medical staff all over the world, plus the lawyers on both sides of the debate are colluding to throw the case, the tobacco companies who are prepared to pay out untold amounts of wealth on condition that their liabilities are limited, add to that the insurance companies and the governments of at least all of the developed world, that is one heck of a theory.

Why would it be that smokers die younger, even comparing from within socio-economic groups ?
Why would it be that those from the same groups are exposed to the virus you mention but the smokers live a few years less?

Your quote of non-smokers living a few years longer is ,well odd, it makes you look as if you are saying that those extra few years are somehow unimportant.

I also believe that there is research going on to see if other conditions are viral in nature such as arthritis, Parkinsons, and especially diabetes.Chlamydia is one agent that is being investigated. The theory being that we are talking of low level infections which exist over many years.They may not cause obvious symptoms of distress and are not yet classed as a health hazard.

31

Carol Thompson:

As someone who enjoyed reading the lucid arguments on alt.smoking from smokers rights folks such as yourself, I am glad to see you are here!

I want to ask your own views on a few things, if I may.

First of all, do you think smoking is unhealthy to the person who is smoking? What are your views on second-hand smoke? And what do you think would be a fair resolution to everyone - smokers and non-smokers - in terms of what tobacco companies are allowed to do and what smokers are allowed to do?

I anxiously await your responses…

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, one week, five days, 7 hours, 28 minutes and 6 seconds.
5372 cigarettes not smoked, saving $671.56.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 4 days, 15 hours, 40 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]