Thursday
Jan142010
Why Finland?
Thursday, January 14, 2010 I shall be discussing the Finland smoking story on the BBC Radio Wales lunchtime phone-in from 12 noon. Broadcasting House is ten minutes' walk from our office in Soho so there's just time for another cup of coffee (my fourth of the day) ...
BTW, does anyone have any idea why Finland should want to lead the way towards prohibition? Facts would be good but idle speculation is equally welcome.
See BBC report HERE.
Reader Comments (64)
Dave, I think its time to start employing our own spin doctors to promote this revelation, although I'd say the antis already know about it, but supressed it for purpose.
But where would the money come from, unless we did a Murdock and bought a newspaper.
How'se about following govt trends and doing a bit of outsourcing ourselves, by employing an Indian or Chinese PR guru (at half the price) before the anti smoke brigade take their country over too.
Or maybe a disenchanted aid worker with entrepranurial skills who has seen through the bullshit and is looking to put something truthful back into society.
Mind you, I've always suspected that non smokers had their own suseptible genetic cancer gene themselves, when I see the amount of friends and family who died of lung cancer over the years and who never put a ciggy to their lips in their lives.
Its no big surprice to me at all, I have to say.
Don't worry, Ann:
I'm planning on coming back as an Anglo-Russian Oil Billionaire.
I'll set up a newspaper - along the lines of 'Spiked' - catering for ALL points of view, but fiercely dedicated to pursuing TWO objectives:
The Truth, and
Freedom
And it'll be (appropriately) FREE.
Hell, what's a few million in lost profits a year if we could achieve THAT ?
And Martin, I'll come back as Blofeld and take over all the tobacco plantations of the world and pack all the fags in psycadelic (cant spell) boxes and beam advertisemets on the walls of multinational corporporations, saving the biggest for the NHS building.
Then flood the market with free cigarettes!
Sounds great, Ann -
I'm looking forward to it...............
(But don't forget the white pussycat)
@Junican
Take 3 on lung cancer.
The reason that smokers die of lung cancer is that smoking causes the Transprotein Gene 53 (p53) on chromosome 11 to mutate. This mutation of the p53 gene loses the body's ability to inhibit and stifle the growth of cancer cells. It is the body's equivalent of white blood cells which fight viruses, if you like.
In non smokers the p53 does not mutate. Instead the EGFR-gene mutates in non smokers which stops their abilty to fight off lung cancer.
The bilogical process is entirely different.
Therefore lung cancer in smokers is caused by smoking. As the p53 gene is not affected by passive smoke, i.e. it does not mutate it is biologically impossible for non smokers to contract lung cancer. What causes the EGFR-gene to mutate I will investigate.
My guesses are the Human Papillomavirus versions 16 and 18, possibly diesel, or red meat.
For the sake of clarity it is now proven that passive smoking does not cause lung cancer.
Dave
I’m sorry for not getting to grips with what you’re saying…please walk me through it.
‘The reason that smokers die of lung cancer is that smoking causes the Transprotein Gene 53 (p53) on chromosome 11 to mutate’.
1. But not all smokers die of lung cancer, as we know many live into very old age. How can some smokers possibly be immune?
2. How does the simple inhalation of smoke from a cigarette, cigar or pipe possibly affect the human genetic structure? Please outline the biological sequence of events that would lead to that.
3. Cancerous lung tissue only appears on the outside of the lung… air or smoke does not reach the outside of the lung but is contained within the lung…so how can smoking cause cancer?
4. What confounding factors have been taken into consideration, we breathe in pollution every day from vehicle emissions (carbon monoxide), industrial pollution from home and abroad and of course from pesticides, herbicides and fungicides which are sprayed on farmers’ crops (remember these are meant to kill living organisms)… all swirl around in the atmosphere which are breathed in every day.
5. Any self respecting pathologist will tell you that it is impossible to tell a pair of smokers lungs from a pair of non-smokers lungs…they look identical…even if the smoker had smoked long term. So, if this is true then how can it be possible to say if a lung cancer death would have been due to smoking…you can see the problem can’t you?
6. Why is it possible to say then that smoking causes lung cancer, but ‘passive smoking’ does not, since so called ‘passive smoking’ is made up of the same constituent chemicals (albeit vastly diluted) that make up primary smoke.
7. You will also be aware that the government does not record deaths by smoking…meaning that if any definitive association existed between smoking and lung cancer it would be thus recorded.
I’m left with the impression that it is easier to admit that ‘passive smoking’ has nothing more than conjectural value at best, and it is therefore preferable to hang on to a well established conventional wisdom that smoking causes lung cancer…it’s so much easier to sell to the public.
Dave A -
Fascinating stuff. Many thanks for sharing it with us - not all of whom are quite as scientifically literate as you obviously are.
As Cyril suggests above, however, the scientific element in the Great Debate tends to take second place to the political.
As with 'Global Warming', one rather gets the impression that an agenda was decided upon some time before anything approaching a 'public discussion' emerged, and that only those aspects of scientific research which SEEMED to support that agenda were given a full airing, whilst those that contradicted it were swept from view (and in some cases, actively suppressed).
In the non-scientific area, obvious parallels are provided by the wholly synthetic 'War On Terror' and the continuing growth of the European Superstate.
Hence, of course, the tolerance of even obviously FABRICATED data: grist to the mill, and all that.
If this analysis is correct, then it follows (regrettably) that any further appeals to scientific integrity, arising from the latest credible research, will continue to fall upon deaf ears.
To put it another way: the agenda (in both cases) was NEVER science-based to begin with.
Hence the touchy refusal to engage in any real way with the counter -'consensual' view, and a publicly-reassuring 'The Science Is Settled' posture.
And when you add Bureaucratic Inertia and the seductively plausible 'Precautionary Principle' to the mix, we really DO have our work cut out for us.
@Cyril
1.This is the genetic issue. The quality of your genes and it's ability to fight the mutation. Poor genes increase your suseptability up to a factor of 300% or a Relative Risk of 3.0
2. I wrote to the author of that report and got a reply, she does not know either!! My nobel prize for medicine maybe in the post.
3. Our body is under constant attack by cancer. The function of the p53 gene is to fight off lung cancer, when you smoke it loses that ability.
4. Most epidemiological studies take this into account,they are called "confounding factors." So if you are a smoker exposed to radon or asbestos this would be taken note of. The 2006 Neuberger study says "urban living" is a risk for lung cancer.
5. I take your point.Why smoking turns off the p53 gene scientists do not know. Alas no one has the balls to fund a study into it.
6. Because the dose is that low and the p53 gene is not mutated by SHS. I have a paper published in the New England Journal for Medicine which stated that a barman working in a smoky bar consumes 0.009 cigarettes per hour. If he works 40 hours a week for 50 weeks he will consume no more than 18 cigarettes in that year. I need to do some more research but SHS maybe protective of lung cancer in non smokers. The 2006 Neuberger study has an RR of 0.37, ie 2/3rds less chance oflung cancer is exposed to SHS. Because it is such a low dose, the body's defence mechanism over compensates and increases its immunity.
7. Best summed up here."Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" so said Alvan Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology in 1999 on passive smoking.
@Martin V
Watch this space :)
My name is CHRIS NOT CYRIL!
Try reading the name of the poster!
"The function of the p53 gene is to fight off lung cancer, when you smoke it loses that ability [...] Alas no one has the balls to fund a study into it. "
Dave,
There are ~25,000 known TP53 mutations in almost every human cancer and it is very well studied in the context of the harm theory of smoking!
My name is CHRIS NOT CYRIL!
That's right Sid, you tell him. I don't think Arthur reads anything properly.
My profoundest apologies, Chris !
I've only just noticed.
You definitely deserve better.................
Dave A -
You can bank on it !
Alvan Feinstein's remark (which echoes merrily around the Globe these days) is interesting.
If the science is 'rotten', on WHAT rational grounds - apart from those of personal taste -DOES he justify the destruction of so much freedom ?
Yes - the question IS rhetorical.
Is it extravagant to suggest that one would have expected an academic with a Jewish name to demonstrate a greater historical awareness of the dangers of Intolerance ?
(And so is that one).