New study states the anti-smoking groups are exaggerating

U

uncballzer

aka Silky
Didn't see anyone else post this yet, but the doc over at the "rest of the story" blog posted about a study today that confirmed what we all know--that the anti-smoking groups are exaggerating and full of :BS. Nice little read. Thanks to the fella that first posted on here about this blog--i've read everything in this blog since I've found it. Here's the link, pretty interesting read.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/10/blowing-secondhand-smoke-new-research.html
 
I can't imagine that people actually believed that 30 minutes of acute, passive smoke exposure could result in "hardening of the arteries" and "adverse cardiovascular effects just like those experienced by life-long smokers" in the first place! (not actual quotes from the article, just a summation).
 
chibnkr said:
I can't imagine that people actually believed that 30 minutes of acute, passive smoke exposure could result in "hardening of the arteries" and "adverse cardiovascular effects just like those experienced by life-long smokers" in the first place! (not actual quotes from the article, just a summation).
Click to expand...

That is the problem. People do believe it because the hear it repeatedly throughout the day. They are in effect "brain-washed" by the repetiveness of the inaccurate information until they believe it.
 
Thanks for the link.

chibnkr said:
I can't imagine that people actually believed that 30 minutes of acute, passive smoke exposure could result in "hardening of the arteries" and "adverse cardiovascular effects just like those experienced by life-long smokers" in the first place! (not actual quotes from the article, just a summation).
Click to expand...

That was my first thought, too. There's no argument about the effects of chronic exposure to second-hand smoke.

Here's what I consider to be the meat of the conclusions.

The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness.

…It appears that a large number of anti-smoking organizations are making inaccurate claims that a single, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke can cause severe and even fatal cardiovascular events in healthy nonsmokers.

While there is ample evidence that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and therefore heart attack risk, and there is some suggestive evidence that acute exposure to secondhand smoke may present some degree of risk to individuals with existing severe coronary artery disease, there appears to be no scientific basis for claims that brief, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk in individuals without coronary disease, that it increases such risk to the level observed in smokers, that it can cause atherosclerosis, that it can cause fatal or catastrophic cardiac arrhythmias, or that it represents any other significant acute cardiovascular health hazard in nonsmokers.​
 
"Anti-Smoking" Groups are big business, the money spent ranges in the billions, I think. If you were a smoker and needed money wouldn't you join too?

They don't take into account harm reduction like Swedish Match is trying to promote.

They say chew causes periodontitis but have you ever looked at what chew is? Tobacco that is cured (Either American Style that contains carcinogens and Swedish Style that is steamed cured containing alot less carcinogens) and then a casing is added. Casing is a word for flavorings etc. The biggest chew manufacturer is owned by Swedish Match which is Red Man whole leaf in a casing of molasses. What does molasses contain/is? Sugar!

Then they say floor cleaner, rat poison etc is added... Lets look at this, Ammonia is a natural occuring substance in just about every living thing. Ammonia makes tobacco taste bad, why they age it. Why would they add it? Of course the tobacco is going to contain Rat poison etc. Because they need to keep it safe its a cash crop. It's like the diet cola fiasco. They say its dangerous because the artificial sugar breaks down into a chemical we all know. Formaldehyde but what you don't hear from the advocates when you a consume an apple that it contains more formaldehyde than any soda.

Tobacco effects have been known for a looooooooong time one Queen (Not sure who it was or when) outlawed tobacco because it blackened the lungs, caused lazyness etc when it was first brought back to Europe. This country esentially built itself on tobacco, without it this country would not exist IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top