Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
There is an interesting thread on Dr. Michael Siegel's
nedical blog bringing up a little known fact that in 50 years
of animal experiments, the result is that smoking animals live
substantially longer (by 20 percent), stay thinner, more youthful
and perform better, especially on cognitive tests:
Thread - smoking extends lifespan:
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162447
Even though this blog is a place where physicians and others
interested in public health and tobacco control come to discuss
news in these fields, they were unable to produce a single
fact of hard science (such as lab experiments or randomized
trials) demonstrating any harm of smoking to smoker. After
326 posts discussing the health effects of smoking, the only
conclusion supported by the scientific facts was:
Smoking is good for you.
Dr Siegel's blog:
http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /
News Story opening the thread
http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /2008/06/media-reports-decline-of-up-to-40-in.html
There is an interesting thread on Dr. Michael Siegel's
nedical blog bringing up a little known fact that in 50 years
of animal experiments, the result is that smoking animals live
substantially longer (by 20 percent), stay thinner, more youthful
and perform better, especially on cognitive tests:
Thread - smoking extends lifespan:
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162447
Even though this blog is a place where physicians and others
interested in public health and tobacco control come to discuss
news in these fields, they were unable to produce a single
fact of hard science (such as lab experiments or randomized
trials) demonstrating any harm of smoking to smoker. After
326 posts discussing the health effects of smoking, the only
conclusion supported by the scientific facts was:
Smoking is good for you.
Dr Siegel's blog:
http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /
News Story opening the thread
http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /2008/06/media-reports-decline-of-up-to-40-in.html
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <3d934788-7761-49b8-94d7-e136719ed847@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>There is an interesting thread on Dr. Michael Siegel's
>nedical blog bringing up a little known fact that in 50 years
>of animal experiments, the result is that smoking animals live
>substantially longer (by 20 percent), stay thinner, more youthful
>and perform better, especially on cognitive tests:
>
>Thread - smoking extends lifespan:
> http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162447
>
>Even though this blog is a place where physicians and others
>interested in public health and tobacco control come to discuss
>news in these fields, they were unable to produce a single
>fact of hard science (such as lab experiments or randomized
>trials) demonstrating any harm of smoking to smoker. After
>326 posts discussing the health effects of smoking, the only
>conclusion supported by the scientific facts was:
>Smoking is good for you.
Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
>Dr Siegel's blog:
> http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /
>
>News Story opening the thread
> http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /2008/06/media-reports-decline-of-up-to-40-in.html
In article <3d934788-7761-49b8-94d7-e136719ed847@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>There is an interesting thread on Dr. Michael Siegel's
>nedical blog bringing up a little known fact that in 50 years
>of animal experiments, the result is that smoking animals live
>substantially longer (by 20 percent), stay thinner, more youthful
>and perform better, especially on cognitive tests:
>
>Thread - smoking extends lifespan:
> http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162447
>
>Even though this blog is a place where physicians and others
>interested in public health and tobacco control come to discuss
>news in these fields, they were unable to produce a single
>fact of hard science (such as lab experiments or randomized
>trials) demonstrating any harm of smoking to smoker. After
>326 posts discussing the health effects of smoking, the only
>conclusion supported by the scientific facts was:
>Smoking is good for you.
Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
>Dr Siegel's blog:
> http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /
>
>News Story opening the thread
> http :// tobaccoanalysis.blogspot,com /2008/06/media-reports-decline-of-up-to-40-in.html
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
The Grande Dame of The Whack-Job Panty-Nannys (Nits Watson) wrote:
>
> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
Ahh, such a defeatist and conciliatory response from an extremist
neurotic nut-job. LOL!
TBN
The Grande Dame of The Whack-Job Panty-Nannys (Nits Watson) wrote:
>
> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
Ahh, such a defeatist and conciliatory response from an extremist
neurotic nut-job. LOL!
TBN
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
I don't mind keeping trees in business. BTW, low dose carbon monoxide,
as
delivered by tobacco smoke, acts as a signalling molecule which
improves
oxygenation of tissues. Similarly, the low dose Nitric Oxide from
smoke
stimulates peripheral circulation (e.g. used in Viagra), while
nicotine
upregulates vascular growth factor, promoting growth, branching
and repair of blood vessels (it is even used in medications to grow
new
heart arteries, as alternative for heart bypass surgery).
See some references here:
http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
I don't mind keeping trees in business. BTW, low dose carbon monoxide,
as
delivered by tobacco smoke, acts as a signalling molecule which
improves
oxygenation of tissues. Similarly, the low dose Nitric Oxide from
smoke
stimulates peripheral circulation (e.g. used in Viagra), while
nicotine
upregulates vascular growth factor, promoting growth, branching
and repair of blood vessels (it is even used in medications to grow
new
heart arteries, as alternative for heart bypass surgery).
See some references here:
http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <5e971a7b-0348-4c4c-b127-2167da0cdd65@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
>
>I don't mind keeping trees in business. BTW, low dose carbon monoxide,
>as
>delivered by tobacco smoke, acts as a signalling molecule which
>improves
>oxygenation of tissues. Similarly, the low dose Nitric Oxide from
>smoke
>stimulates peripheral circulation (e.g. used in Viagra), while
>nicotine
>upregulates vascular growth factor, promoting growth, branching
>and repair of blood vessels (it is even used in medications to grow
>new
>heart arteries, as alternative for heart bypass surgery).
>
>See some references here:
> http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
Smoke more. I make money from you from shares of tobacco
and medical supplies.
In article <5e971a7b-0348-4c4c-b127-2167da0cdd65@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>> Then smoke your lungs out. Keep the oxygen companies in business.
>
>I don't mind keeping trees in business. BTW, low dose carbon monoxide,
>as
>delivered by tobacco smoke, acts as a signalling molecule which
>improves
>oxygenation of tissues. Similarly, the low dose Nitric Oxide from
>smoke
>stimulates peripheral circulation (e.g. used in Viagra), while
>nicotine
>upregulates vascular growth factor, promoting growth, branching
>and repair of blood vessels (it is even used in medications to grow
>new
>heart arteries, as alternative for heart bypass surgery).
>
>See some references here:
> http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
Smoke more. I make money from you from shares of tobacco
and medical supplies.
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
Since I make my own for under $10 per carton, it is doubtful
you make a penny from my cigarettes. The same goes for
medical supplies -- haven't been to doctors or used any
prescription meds for about 20 years. The only two docs
I visited were my parents, and even those were only as
visits to parents, not to docs.
Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
humans have ever known. Why would I risk some half baked
pharmaceutical rushed to market after a year or two of testing
on couple thousand subjects, when I can have this ancient
medicine which was tested for 8000 years on couple billion
lifelong subjects.
== Some therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke
http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
== Plus few more
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f9&t125&st=0&#entry166250
If you do know of any scientific experiment that has ever
demonstrated any harm at all to smoker, let us know.
The docs and researchers at Dr. Siegel's blog couldn't
show any, nor the folks at nootropic forum, nor any
other medical forum I asked. They did bring up few
papers they thought, based on abstracts, to show
some harm. Unfortunately for them, they were duped
by the weasel worded abstracts, since the actual data
from the papers themselves showed, every time, that
smoking animals significantly lived longer and stayed
thinner than nonsmoking animal under variety of
conditions.
As for statistical correlations of smoking and 'smoking
related' diseases, you may as well label headaches
as 'aspirin related' disease, or heart attacks as 'statin
related disease' or sunburns or skin cancers as
'sunglasses related' injury. In other words,
correlations with diseases exist for harmful and
therapeutic/protective factors. It is the experiment
which shows which is the case. With smoking,
experiment show that smoking is not only harmless
to smoker, but that it is stongly therapeutic and
rejuvenating.
=== Does tobacco smoking cause any disease? No.
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162510
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?sw628fe1bb07fedba1f43b413a04f21f&showtopic125&view=findpost&p7147
== Smoking extends lifespan of smoker (about 20 percent)
* In mice (2005 Pfizer sponsored experiment which went "wrong")
http :// www ,fr eerepublic,com /focus/news/2025587/posts?pagec#63
* In rats (2004 Pfizer, went "wrong")
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic125&view=findpost&p7231
* In hamsters (1974, variety of co-exposures, large series of
experiments sponsored by National Cancer Institute, it went
terribly "wrong" - in every subgroup smoking hamsters lived ~20%
longer)
http :// www ,fr eerepublic,com /focus/news/2032105/posts?page6#36
Since I make my own for under $10 per carton, it is doubtful
you make a penny from my cigarettes. The same goes for
medical supplies -- haven't been to doctors or used any
prescription meds for about 20 years. The only two docs
I visited were my parents, and even those were only as
visits to parents, not to docs.
Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
humans have ever known. Why would I risk some half baked
pharmaceutical rushed to market after a year or two of testing
on couple thousand subjects, when I can have this ancient
medicine which was tested for 8000 years on couple billion
lifelong subjects.
== Some therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke
http :// www .stahlheart,com /wispofsmoke/goodforyou.html
== Plus few more
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f9&t125&st=0&#entry166250
If you do know of any scientific experiment that has ever
demonstrated any harm at all to smoker, let us know.
The docs and researchers at Dr. Siegel's blog couldn't
show any, nor the folks at nootropic forum, nor any
other medical forum I asked. They did bring up few
papers they thought, based on abstracts, to show
some harm. Unfortunately for them, they were duped
by the weasel worded abstracts, since the actual data
from the papers themselves showed, every time, that
smoking animals significantly lived longer and stayed
thinner than nonsmoking animal under variety of
conditions.
As for statistical correlations of smoking and 'smoking
related' diseases, you may as well label headaches
as 'aspirin related' disease, or heart attacks as 'statin
related disease' or sunburns or skin cancers as
'sunglasses related' injury. In other words,
correlations with diseases exist for harmful and
therapeutic/protective factors. It is the experiment
which shows which is the case. With smoking,
experiment show that smoking is not only harmless
to smoker, but that it is stongly therapeutic and
rejuvenating.
=== Does tobacco smoking cause any disease? No.
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162510
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?sw628fe1bb07fedba1f43b413a04f21f&showtopic125&view=findpost&p7147
== Smoking extends lifespan of smoker (about 20 percent)
* In mice (2005 Pfizer sponsored experiment which went "wrong")
http :// www ,fr eerepublic,com /focus/news/2025587/posts?pagec#63
* In rats (2004 Pfizer, went "wrong")
http :// www .imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic125&view=findpost&p7231
* In hamsters (1974, variety of co-exposures, large series of
experiments sponsored by National Cancer Institute, it went
terribly "wrong" - in every subgroup smoking hamsters lived ~20%
longer)
http :// www ,fr eerepublic,com /focus/news/2032105/posts?page6#36
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <8976e32c-3180-487a-ab6c-1b63b57db6cf@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>
>Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>humans have ever known.
You win. That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
Keep on smoking. If you get emphysema, smoke more to cure it.
In article <8976e32c-3180-487a-ab6c-1b63b57db6cf@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>
>Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>humans have ever known.
You win. That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
Keep on smoking. If you get emphysema, smoke more to cure it.
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>> humans have ever known.
>
> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
a solid scientific fact. Show me another substance,
natural or synthetic, that given to a wide variety
of lab animals and under variety of other
conditions (such as simultaneous exposure to
industrial toxins) extends their lifespan by 20
percent, keeps them slim, makes them perform
better on cognitive tests, reduces accumulation
of industrial toxins in their tissues,....
I asked that question in medical forums, from
doctors and medical researchers, and no one
could either show any other substance that can do it
or challenge the facts presented, showing that this
medicinal miracle plant, somehow does the magic.
You are simply poorly informed and your own health,
wellbeing and longevity will pay the price of that
unwillingness to learn. You can still start, though.
Better late than never (e.g. see this from the
mentioned thread in Dr. Siegel's blog:
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162614
).
>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>> humans have ever known.
>
> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
a solid scientific fact. Show me another substance,
natural or synthetic, that given to a wide variety
of lab animals and under variety of other
conditions (such as simultaneous exposure to
industrial toxins) extends their lifespan by 20
percent, keeps them slim, makes them perform
better on cognitive tests, reduces accumulation
of industrial toxins in their tissues,....
I asked that question in medical forums, from
doctors and medical researchers, and no one
could either show any other substance that can do it
or challenge the facts presented, showing that this
medicinal miracle plant, somehow does the magic.
You are simply poorly informed and your own health,
wellbeing and longevity will pay the price of that
unwillingness to learn. You can still start, though.
Better late than never (e.g. see this from the
mentioned thread in Dr. Siegel's blog:
http :// www .haloscan,com /comments/mbsiegel/1733509792479399693/#162614
).
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <e658f922-f469-453b-96c1-38f6eb5ed387@8g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>>> humans have ever known.
>>
>> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
>
>Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
>a solid scientific fact.
Sorry, lunatic, it's the perfect rationalization for you
to keep on smoking and do so without facing the
real threat of fatal disease.
Which will it be? Lung cancer or emphysema? Choose the
first. It's quicker. You'll last less than a year. The
second takes decades as you slowly suffocate.
In article <e658f922-f469-453b-96c1-38f6eb5ed387@8g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
nightlight <warren@omegapoint,com > wrote:
>>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
>>> humans have ever known.
>>
>> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
>
>Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
>a solid scientific fact.
Sorry, lunatic, it's the perfect rationalization for you
to keep on smoking and do so without facing the
real threat of fatal disease.
Which will it be? Lung cancer or emphysema? Choose the
first. It's quicker. You'll last less than a year. The
second takes decades as you slowly suffocate.
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
On Jun 30, 11:32 am, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <e658f922-f469-453b-96c1-38f6eb5ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> nightlight <war...@omegapoint,com > wrote:
> >>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
> >>> humans have ever known.
>
> >> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
>
> >Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
> >a solid scientific fact.
>
> Sorry, lunatic, it's the perfect rationalization for you
> to keep on smoking and do so without facing the
> real threat of fatal disease.
>
> Which will it be? Lung cancer or emphysema? Choose the
> first. It's quicker. You'll last less than a year. The
> second takes decades as you slowly suffocate.
The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
emphysema is infinitesimal!
On Jun 30, 11:32 am, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <e658f922-f469-453b-96c1-38f6eb5ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> nightlight <war...@omegapoint,com > wrote:
> >>> Tobacco is the most potent medicinal plant and youth elixir
> >>> humans have ever known.
>
> >> That's the best rationalization I've ever heard.
>
> >Rationalization or not, what matters is that it is
> >a solid scientific fact.
>
> Sorry, lunatic, it's the perfect rationalization for you
> to keep on smoking and do so without facing the
> real threat of fatal disease.
>
> Which will it be? Lung cancer or emphysema? Choose the
> first. It's quicker. You'll last less than a year. The
> second takes decades as you slowly suffocate.
The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
emphysema is infinitesimal!
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>emphysema is infinitesimal!
http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
In article <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>emphysema is infinitesimal!
http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article
> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
> NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>>
>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>
> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
Interesting...
If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
cigars.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article
> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
> NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>>
>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>
> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
Interesting...
If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
cigars.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <6cuto6F3j71n5U1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article
>> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
>> NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>>>
>>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>>
>> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>
>Interesting...
>
> If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
>appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
>cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
>into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
>cigars.
"Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
--William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
"Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
--Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
In article <6cuto6F3j71n5U1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article
>> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605edb1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
>> NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>>>
>>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>>
>> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>
>Interesting...
>
> If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
>appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
>cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
>into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
>cigars.
"Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
--William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
"Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
--Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
On Jul 1, 9:52 am, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <6cuto6F3j71n...@mid.individual,net >,
>
>
>
>
>
> btorvik2 <btorv...@aol,com > wrote:
> >Bruce Watson wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
> >> NickyK <Nicky.K...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
> >>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>
> >> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>
> >Interesting...
>
> > If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
> >appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
> >cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
>
> My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
> is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
>
> Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
> It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>
> >The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
> >into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
> >cigars.
>
> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
> and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>
> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
> in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
> smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
> --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>
> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Schneiderman is a lying criminal so if he says it must be true
ROTFLMFAO
On Jul 1, 9:52 am, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> In article <6cuto6F3j71n...@mid.individual,net >,
>
>
>
>
>
> btorvik2 <btorv...@aol,com > wrote:
> >Bruce Watson wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
> >> NickyK <Nicky.K...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
> >>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>
> >> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>
> >Interesting...
>
> > If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
> >appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
> >cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
>
> My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
> is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
>
> Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
> It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>
> >The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
> >into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
> >cigars.
>
> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
> and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>
> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
> in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
> smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
> --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>
> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Schneiderman is a lying criminal so if he says it must be true
ROTFLMFAO
Re: Dr.Siegel Blog: Smoking Extends Lifespan
In article <83bacbfc-9ed1-4541-b417-b09fb73431f7@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>> In article <6cuto6F3j71n...@mid.individual,net >,
>>
>> btorvik2 <btorv...@aol,com > wrote:
>> >Bruce Watson wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
>>
>> >>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>> >>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>>
>> >> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>>
>> >Interesting...
>>
>> > If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
>> >appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
>> >cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
>>
>> My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
>> is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
>>
>> Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
>> It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>>
>> >The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
>> >into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
>> >cigars.
>>
>> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
>> and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
>> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
>> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>>
>> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
>> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
>> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
>> in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
>> smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
>>
>> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
>
>Marc Schneiderman is a lying criminal so if he says it must be true
>ROTFLMFAO
He posts in alt.cigars. Let's see what he says about it.
In article <83bacbfc-9ed1-4541-b417-b09fb73431f7@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com >,
NickyK <Nicky.Kale@gmail,com > wrote:
>> In article <6cuto6F3j71n...@mid.individual,net >,
>>
>> btorvik2 <btorv...@aol,com > wrote:
>> >Bruce Watson wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <2e5f13d4-bf30-43c9-8150-0be38605e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
>>
>> >>> The true percentage of those who smoke tobacco & get lung cancer or
>> >>> emphysema is infinitesimal!
>>
>> >> http :// www .mskcc.org/mskcc/html/12463.cfm
>>
>> >Interesting...
>>
>> > If I classify myself currently as a non-smoker (since the calculator
>> >appears to reference only cigarette smoking), by chances of getting lung
>> >cancer in the next 10 years are 4%.
>>
>> My risk doesn't even register. I quit too long ago. My risk
>> is the same as a never smoker, less than 1%, much less than 1%.
>>
>> Remember that 4% will increase as you continue to smoke.
>> It will get you to the risk of a single play of Russian Roulette, 17%
>>
>> >The calculator seems to apply only to cigarette smoking and doesn't take
>> >into account those who have quit cigarette smoking but still smoke pipes or
>> >cigars.
>>
>> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
>> and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
>> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
>> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>>
>> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
>> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
>> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
>> in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
>> smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
>>
>> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
>
>Marc Schneiderman is a lying criminal so if he says it must be true
>ROTFLMFAO
He posts in alt.cigars. Let's see what he says about it.
