Snus just as bad as chews?

[WerkIt]

Originally Posted by paladinx

In statistics there is such a thing as being statistically strong. Its pretty obvious that the larger the sample, the more statistically powerful something becomes and the more trends can be spotted.

There is also the risk of skewed results, if the sample of the statistic isn't random, as in the case of studying Swedish construction workers exclusively, who may or may not happen to be a random sample of the population at large.

Originally Posted by paladinx

Again with statistics it is VERY important to understand the parties interested in the study.

What matters far more is the soundness of the methodology, not necessarily who is paying for it.

Originally Posted by paladinx

Swedish Match is not going to take part or fund a study that will hurt them. Just a little common sense there.

If Swedish Match does a study based on sound methodology and the same results are demonstrated in other studies based on sound methodology, then we most certainly have no reason to question the results of a study that Swedish Match paid for. If the science is sound, the same results are easily reproducible and can be repeatedly demonstrated, regardless of who paid for what.

"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?"

Originally Posted by paladinx

They studied the same group of people all of which were subjected to similar variables. That is the point. It makes a study stronger when you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges to bannannas.

Unless the apples are Swedish construction workers who may be exposed to chemicals that the oranges of the rest of the population are not. In such a case, the end results could well be skewed, or non-random.

Originally Posted by paladinx

lol. I dont even know what to say to that. we are not comparing advances in technology that are centuries apart.

The point is, we do in fact deny earlier scientific claims if they are later disproven through REPEATED demonstrations to have been false.

Originally Posted by paladinx

And I am sure the connection still exists to degrees I am not sure of.

Your personally chosen beliefs are contradicted by later studies.

Originally Posted by paladinx

What I am saying is that they DID see a connection, and I believe anyone who has a little common sense will at the very least take that into some consideration.

Whereas I prefer to see ALL available evidence, rather than rely on older studies which were later contradicted by NUMEROUS studies, only one of which was paid for by Swedish Match.

[paladinx]

Alrite, I thought maybe here people would not be like the rest of the e-cigarette forum. I am sure this will go back and forth, so I will avoid it and fight the urge to again quote you and give my 2 cents.

Me bringing up the large cohort study is to make a simple point, But most people want to be very clearheaded with what they choose to do. Ask yourself this. Do you believe snus is completely riskless? I doubt you do. So then what is the problem? What are the risks you believe are associated with snus? Why cant people approach things with some common sense, and just say hey. one huge study analyzing over 100,000 people of the same type of category, facing the same variables were reported to have an increased risk when using snus. Why not just do the smart thing, and take that into consideration instead of dismissing it and tell yourself that If you over abuse nicotine or tobacco, there might be some health risks. no instead, people want to say ahh thats rubbish another study did not find a correlation so i will choose to believe that one entirely. And that is exactly what you are doing. You want to believe there is 0 connection because it is more appealing to you.

One major cause of heart disease is high blood pressure. Snus has tons of sodium and nicotine. Using it constantly might on average cause an increase in blood pressure compared to non users. if you look at a huge sample group. You might start seeing how this increase might effect a population. Same way you might start seeing trends in large populations that eat rich foods.


So the moral of the story again, is not to take that large cohort study at 100 percent face value, or 0 percent. Find a middle ground and realize that there might be some risks even if they happen to be less then the given 40 percent. maybe now in 2009 they are 20, 15, 10 percent. who knows. But i suggest people do not pick and choose what they want to believe just because it puts you at ease. We should have a goal of not abusing anything in excess in the long run. Its a good message, So i hope u still do not feel the need to refute it

[Larry Waters]

Originally Posted by deeptrout

ok so correct me if im wrong but aren't snus just like chew and contain the same awful chemicals and carcinogens? yes its an alternative to smoking but one still proven to cause face cancers........ why not just stick to the vapes?

Swedish/Scandinavian Snus is not just like chew or dip. Snus either doesn't contain the same awful chemicals and carcinogens as dip: of the ones they do contain, they are to a much lesser degree.

The dangerous ingredients in Swedish/Scandinavian Snus are equivalent to the danger from drinking coffee, barbecued meat, or wine.

e-cigs are now said to be dangerous because they contain the the same ingredient as anti-freeze. So do hotdogs and the belching smoke machines at a Jonas brothers concert. Oh, the children!

[Larry Waters]

Originally Posted by Elwin

Snus and chew look similar, but the manufacturing process and the secondary ingredients are VERY different.
Chew uses sugar products and is fermented.
Snus uses salt and is pasterized similar what is done to milk products. This drastically reduces the TSNAs (Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines) in tobacco that have been found to be carcinogenic.

Here's a short quote from an article by Larry Waters:
"The biggest concern of any tobacco user is cancer. Snus does not cause lung cancer because it has no tar and is not inhaled. But there are naturally occurring substances in tobacco that are carcinogenic. They are called TSNA's.
The lower the TSNA level in a tobacco product, the less harmful/risky it is concerning cancer. Oral and throat cancer is most associated with American Chewing Tobacco or Dip. Here are some products and numbers to make this real for you.
Copenhagen has a TSNA level of 41.1
Skoal has a TSNA level of 64.0
Silver Creek has a TSNA level of 127.9
OK, nice numbers, but compared to what? Snus is an oral tobacco product too. Here are two Scandinavian Snus's and their TSNA levels:
Ettan Snus made by Swedish Match in Sweden has a TSNA level of 2.8
Offroad and Phantom, two brands with multiple flavors of Snus made by V2 Tobacco have TSNA levels of 0.7
The Difference is HUGE: remember, the lower the TSNA level, the better."
And to your question as to why not just stick to vapes?
Simple: The more ammunition you have in your arsonnel to combat addiction and in harm reduction, the better.

I can't speak for everyone here, but those of us who find that vaping just doesn't work as a complete replacement for cigarettes find a HUGE comfort in the fact that there are many alternatives to choose from. And most importantly, alternatives that are safer than what started our addiction.
The Swedes have proven that the use of snus has greatly reduced the cancers associated with smoking. While their tobacco use is just as high as any other country in all of Europe, their cancer risk as a whole is the lowest in those same countries.
So, to answer your original question:
No - snus and chew aren't the same at all.

Exactly correct and thanks for quoting me! All this info and more can be found on SnusCENTRAL.org. I originally started it because there WAS so much mis-information and outright falsehoods about this on the internet.

Larry

[Larry Waters]

Originally Posted by WerkIt

First of all, what proof do you have for the above claim? Second of all, why is it that snus used to contain a warning stating that it may cause cancer, but as of 2005, is no longer required to contain that warning, because NONE of the numerous health studies of snus, going back for a century, showed ANY increased risk of oral cancer? Which brings us back to the first question; What is your proof for the above claim?
Those 'same awful chemicals and carcinogens' you mention above are known as tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNA). Traditionally, oral tobaccos produced in the US were fermented. Fermentation produces high levels of TSNAs and there are studies that demonstrate the levels of TSNAs of US produced oral tobaccos INCREASED as the product sat on the shelves.
Snus, and I am talking about Swedish snus here, is regulated as a food by the Swedes, so is subject to an entirely different set of regulations than US oral tobaccos. Additionally, snus is not fermented. Instead, snus is steam pasteurized, which leads to exceedingly low levels of TSNAs, with many Swedish snus containing TSNAs in FRACTIONS of 1 part per milliion. Here's a quote from an older study (2001), which demonstrates the principle:
"The concentration of the total TSNA in the leading U.S. moist oral snuff brands varies greatly, from 7.5 to 128 µg per g dry tobacco (Table 2). For comparison with the TSNA concentrations in the leading five U.S. snuff brands, a popular Swedish snuff brand, which was produced under anaerobic conditions, had even lower TSNA values (2.8 µg/g) than the lowest U.S. snuff brand. This demonstrates that snuff can be produced with low concentration of TSNA and with it, with a significantly reduced potential for carcinogenic activity. The technology clearly exists to manufacture snuff with low levels of TSNA, as shown by the Swedish brand and the brand made by Swedish Match.
The TSNA levels in the two leading U.S. snuff brands, accounting for 69 % of the 1999 U.S. market (14), were found to increase during 6 months storage at room temperature between 30 and 130 %, while the TSNA concentration in the Swedish brand increased inconsequentially." Source
This article references a much larger study, conducted over a period of years:
"The study also showed that using snus did not increase the risk of oral cancer, "

There are numerous studies, not to mention the living laboratories of Sweden and Norway over the last 30 years which substantiate all this. Swedish Match took it one huge step further by sponsoring Phase III Clinical Trials (the very expensive trials the drug companies must sponsor for FDA approval (or not) of a new drug. Dr. Lars Erik Rutqvist of Swedish Match AB: Phase III Clinical Trials on Swedish Snus began in 2008! is on SnusCENTRAL....I'm too new to link yet.

Unfortunately for rational people, there is a core zealot group which is anti tobacco anything; anti-nicotine anything and they have never let the facts and the truth get in their way.

Because of them 46MM Americans who still smoke will sicken and die unnecessarily. Cigarettes are a great nicotine delivery system, but they are now documented as having up to 10,000 toxins and carcinogens once inhaled. Swedish Snus and properly made e-cigarettes are up to 99% less harmful.

Anti Everything Tobacco Zealots don't care. So who is REALLY looking out for the public good and who is on a personal, irrational mission?

I'm new here so I can't post links yet, but if you check out SnusCENTRAL.org, you'll find what you are looking for. Apparently a lot of you do now...that's how I found this forum through my site analytics and I'm happy and proud to be a Member.

Sincerely,

Larry Waters
FORMER 35 year Cigarette Smoker: CURRENT 3 year Swedish Snus User

[Larry Waters]

Originally Posted by WerkIt

There is also the risk of skewed results, if the sample of the statistic isn't random, as in the case of studying Swedish construction workers exclusively, who may or may not happen to be a random sample of the population at large.



What matters far more is the soundness of the methodology, not necessarily who is paying for it. That can be quantified by the way. Other studies were simply on male and female snus users vs cigarette Swedish snus.



If Swedish Match does a study based on sound methodology and the same results are demonstrated in other studies based on sound methodology, then we most certainly have no reason to question the results of a study that Swedish Match paid for. If the science is sound, the same results are easily reproducible and can be repeatedly demonstrated, regardless of who paid for what.

"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?" The Phase III double-blind Independent studies under way which also conform to GSP are VERY expensive. Why do you think FDA makes the drug companies FUND (not RUN) Phase III Clinical trials on new drugs? The

Snus

trials also have NOTHING to do with construction workers in Sweden. They are being conducted in the United States and in Serbia.



Unless the apples are Swedish construction workers who may be exposed to chemicals that the oranges of the rest of the population are not. In such a case, the end results could well be skewed, or non-random.



The point is, we do in fact deny earlier scientific claims if they are later disproved through REPEATED demonstrations to have been false. Read the Andrew Romeo article

on SnusCentral.org

where Philip Morris rigged a test to prove that snus is not effective to stop smoking cigarettes. This was not a Phase III

Independent

study....it was designed to provide the results PM USA wanted.



Your personally chosen beliefs are contradicted by later studies. The ORIGINAL study which 'proved' snus and smokeless tobacco where

cancarious

was based on the use of a particular nasal women in the South USA used to use 50 to 100 years ago. That nasal snuff WAS very high in

TSNA's

.....the author, now discredited, admits to using the

nasel

snuff results and applying them to ALL smokeless tobacco products including Swedish

Snus

.



Whereas I prefer to see ALL available evidence (real scientific evidence: yes. agenda driven

idiological

"studies" where the conclusion is

pre-determined

before the test ever begins? No Thanks.) , rather than rely on older studies which were later contradicted by NUMEROUS studies, only one of which was paid for by Swedish Match.

And guess who funded these "numerous studies"? Anti-tobacco groups, Anti-cigarette groups, and even in some cases, Political Action Groups; both here and in the EU, with an Anti-All-Tobacco agenda. What makes their propaganda any more compelling than the studies disputing them? It's all politics.

In 1964, the Surgeon General of the United States issued his famous report on the dangers of cigarettes. The US Government, instead of banning cigarettes as they did

thalydimide

,

aspestos

, and lead paint, killed Joe Camel and accepted $250BB in "Settlement Money" from Big Tobacco. The economies of almost all 50 States would collapse without tobacco taxes as well as the Federal Government. This isn't about science, 'the children' (for whom it has been illegal for decades to buy, be sold to, or consume tobacco products), or health. It's about money. It's always been about money. And especially today with our trillion dollar deficits, it will always be about the money.

Kennedy/

Waxman

and the PACT Act are not about stopping tobacco use...they are to close the tax loopholes which allow for example,

Internet

tobacco stores to avoid paying taxes to the States...especially off-shore ones.

We can talk about

TSNA's

, nicotine, nicotine delivery systems and the like all day, but in the end it all boils down to THE MONEY.

Larry Waters

[Stubby]

Originally Posted by Larry Waters

I'm new here so I can't post links yet, but if you check out SnusCENTRAL.org, you'll find what you are looking for. Apparently a lot of you do now...that's how I found this forum through my site analytics and I'm happy and proud to be a Member.

Sincerely,

Larry Waters
FORMER 35 year Cigarette Smoker: CURRENT 3 year Swedish Snus User

Here is the link to snusCENTRAL

SNUSCentral.Org - Your Source For Everything SNUS

Glad to have you over here on the e-cig forum. I've read most of your articles. I didn't know about the Phase III double-blind Independent studies that Swedish Match is doing. That's good news. It looks as if they are preparing for the US market on every level. I think they must see a bright future in North America. I hope so.

http://snuscentral.org/snusnus/mr-un...cal-study.html

http://snuscentral.org/snusnus/mr-un...m-tobacco.html

[Elwin]

Hi Larry! Thanks for stopping by and sharing.

[archerdaddy]

nope, your not dreaming. Actually, while snus is a STP, it is also
a spitless product. Since it has been pasturized, the juice is able to be swallowed. With US snus this is a generally sweet experience, and with Swedish, its generally salty. All depends on your tastes.