The Real story about Formaldehyde

[Stubby]

Not so scary after all as Brad Rodu points out. The occasional dry hit will likely cause..... about zero increased health risk. The link between formaldehyde and cancer is essentially not there and was made up by the "lets scare the bajebes out of everyone" gang, the same thugs who are pushing the anti-THR agenda.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2015/10/up-in-vapor-real-story-behind.html

 

[skoony]

Thanks. The links concerning mouth cancer are important also.
Regards

Mike

 

[Kent C]

Thanks for posting. Rodu is one of the best on these subjects. I like the chain and twisty graphic - perfect!! 1K 'likes' on the post.

And he points out this - the so-called "transparency" - that we are seeing less and less these days in all areas - the deletion of comments, the firing of tenured professors who don't agree with the 'consensus', with the scrubbing of websites, and the demonization with labels of 'deniers'.

" In contrast, the Karolinska Institute and the American Cancer Society have issued warnings about smokeless tobacco but persist in withholding the underlying data (here and here) – a violation of data-sharing and research practice standards."

Same as with the 'smoking related death' data.

And the changing of formaldehyde from an 'agent' or 'co-carcinogen' (ie. NOT a carcinogen) to a first class "know to be a human carcinogen" an NTP classification as Brad points out... I know this because some of my earlier posts that pointed that out came from wiki and now wiki has changed - that's just in a time frame of a few years - another 'redefining' to fit their agenda.

 

[CarolT]

Anybody who ignores the role of Epstein-Barr virus in nasopharyngeal cancer is a fraud, and it's as simple as that. "[A]ll types of NPC, regardless of histological type or differentiation contain clonal episomal EBV genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells." And, an industrial study that actually considered EBV (one of only two that have) found a 170-fold risk attributable to it. That is, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY!
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/11/1145
Nobody who ignores a confounder of such magnitude has any right to pretend to be scientific - they are merely engaging in a charade to dupe the public. This is because with an RR of 170, even missing a few cases of infection can cause spurious associations. And, EBV infection is more frequent, and occurred at younger ages, among poorer people, among whom smokers are included. In fact, this is how those charlatans falsely blame smoking in the first place. And because they systematically ignore abundant evidence of this, their malfeasance should be interpreted as deliberate. Furthermore, the fact that they've gotten away with this outrageous behavior can be construed as conspiracy by the chemistry-oriented so-called scientists, who seem to imagine that they are above accountability for their fraudulent actions.

And yes, Rodu is just as fraudulent as the rest of their lot because he likewise ignores the role of infection. Those people have some kind of priest complex - they think all they have to do is perform a magical ritual, and we'll all be hypnotized into believing them. It's just as Orwell said: OMISSION IS THE MOST POWERFUL FORM OF LIE.

 

[nicnik]

And, EBV infection is more frequent, and occurred at younger ages, among poorer people, among whom smokers are included.

From a link on the page from your website you linked to http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/10/3/803.full

It is now known that EBV infects >90% of the world’s adult population. Upon infection, the individual remains a lifelong carrier of the virus

I think the differences in prevalence among the poor are probably wider with other viruses associated with cancers than EBV.

I agree with you and Orwell about lying by omission.

 

[CarolT]

From a link on the page from your website you linked to http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/10/3/803.full


I think the differences in prevalence among the poor are probably wider with other viruses associated with cancers than EBV.

I agree with you and Orwell about lying by omission.

Here's the relevant page about "EBV & Socioeconomic Status."
http://www.smokershistory.com/ebvsocio.htm
In NHANES data, 75% of the poorest children were infected by ages 6-8, compared with only 40% of the wealthiest. They didn't get approximately equal until ages 18-19. So that's about a decade's worth of difference between the poorest and the richest.

 

[AndriaD]

Here's the relevant page about "EBV & Socioeconomic Status."
http://www.smokershistory.com/ebvsocio.htm
In NHANES data, 75% of the poorest children were infected by ages 6-8, compared with only 40% of the wealthiest. They didn't get approximately equal until ages 18-19. So that's about a decade's worth of difference between the poorest and the richest.

I wonder where the "middle class" would fall in that? Poor people think the middle class is "wealthy," and rich people think we're all peons.

Andria

 

[EBates]

I wonder where the "middle class" would fall in that? Poor people think the middle class is "wealthy," and rich people think we're all peons.

Andria

And the politicians see us as cash cows

 

[AndriaD]

And the politicians see us as cash cows

Yes... Somewhere along the line, they've gotten confused, and instead of serving US, they think we're supposed to serve THEM.

Andria

 

[Stubby]

And yes, Rodu is just as fraudulent as the rest of their lot because he likewise ignores the role of infection. Those people have some kind of priest complex - they think all they have to do is perform a magical ritual, and we'll all be hypnotized into believing them. It's just as Orwell said: OMISSION IS THE MOST POWERFUL FORM OF LIE.

I see that once again you have derailed a thread, as you do with I would guess nearly all of the threads you post in. Your bizarre ideas that smoking is essentially harmless and that viruses cause all the diseases associated with smoking, as in cancer, heart disease, etc, is so far out on the fringe it has fallen off the end of the world.

You of course are doing what the ANTZ have been doing for decades with cherry picking data and manipulating facts to suit your agenda. You're just doing it from the other side of the fence. But then anyone who disagrees with you is a fraud so I guess it's all good. In Madison, in all the years you posted on the local forums, no one ever took you serious. You where a well known local joke, well, at least until you started getting very nasty and banned from everywhere. Here, you actual have a few folks that take you serious so I guess you are making progress.

Don't get to ruffled Carol, I wouldn't dream of getting into an actual discussion with you. I have long ago learned to keep a long distance from ideological fanatics and sociopaths. Getting on Brad Rodu though, who has done more good for THR then probably anyone on the planet earth is stepping way out of bounds, and I just had to comment on what an absolute fraud and charlatan you are.

 

[CarolT]

I see that once again you have derailed a thread, as you do with I would guess nearly all of the threads you post in. Your bizarre ideas that smoking is essentially harmless and that viruses cause all the diseases associated with smoking, as in cancer, heart disease, etc, is so far out on the fringe it has fallen off the end of the world.

You of course are doing what the ANTZ have been doing for decades with cherry picking data and manipulating facts to suit your agenda. You're just doing it from the other side of the fence. But then anyone who disagrees with you is a fraud so I guess it's all good. In Madison, in all the years you posted on the local forums, no one ever took you serious. You where a well known local joke, well, at least until you started getting very nasty and banned from everywhere. Here, you actual have a few folks that take you serious so I guess you are making progress.

Don't get to ruffled Carol, I wouldn't dream of getting into an actual discussion with you. I have long ago learned to keep a long distance from ideological fanatics and sociopaths. Getting on Brad Rodu though, who has done more good for THR then probably anyone on the planet earth is stepping way out of bounds, and I just had to comment on what an absolute fraud and charlatan you are.

The topic is "formaldehyde and cancer." I proved that the authorities lie to us about this. But you, for inexplicable reasons, must want people to believe in those authorities. I presented abundant evidence, and you refuse to even look at it - just like the Surgeon General! You falsely accuse ME of cherry picking data for simply contributing additional data to the discussion, and daring to challenge the Official Narrative. You actually WANT our side to lose, and sweetie, that is the whole reason that you enjoyed our enemies' favor while I didn't.

Brad Rodu can defend himself, if he cares to. In fact, he and his colleagues have some explaining to do about how they can simply ignore an RR of 170, etc. That is entirely legitimate scientific criticism, as it is supposed to be, while your reaction is that of a religious dogmatist.

 

[Stubby]

One question Carol

Do you believe smoking has any negative effect on health?

This is a simple yes or no question.

Just in case you missed it, and it appears you have. Brad Rodu agrees that formaldehyde is not related to cancer, so I don't quite understand what you are ranting about.

 

[CarolT]

One question Carol

Do you believe smoking has any negative effect on health?

This is a simple yes or no question.

Just in case you missed it, and it appears you have. Brad Rodu agrees that formaldehyde is not related to cancer, so I don't quite understand what you are ranting about.

It's not a simple yes or no question, and you know it. It's a loyalty oath question, intended to SHUT DOWN criticism and dissent. It's deliberate misrepresentation of a specific criticism as being general. And asking such a question is a tacit admission that YOU consider any criticism of any Surgeon General dogma, no matter how slight, to be unacceptable.

And therefore the only HONEST answer is that I shall criticize anything that I have discovered to be false. And don't you ever dare issue your fraudulent "yes or no" alternatives, because that false alternative is a lie and those who pose it are liars.

 

[CarolT]

Just in case you missed it, and it appears you have. Brad Rodu agrees that formaldehyde is not related to cancer, so I don't quite understand what you are ranting about.

Unlike some simpletons, I understand that the process by which conclusions are reached is important. The example of formaldehyde is an excellent illustration of the shoddy epidemiology that the establishment engages in, and this is of great importance to the public as a whole. Needless regulations of chemicals cost society billions of dollars, as well as harming the liberties of smokers and vapers. To clean the mess up, they need to stop ignoring the role of infections.

 

[Stubby]

It's not a simple yes or no question, and you know it. It's a loyalty oath question, intended to SHUT DOWN criticism and dissent. It's deliberate misrepresentation of a specific criticism as being general. And asking such a question is a tacit admission that YOU consider any criticism of any Surgeon General dogma, no matter how slight, to be unacceptable.

And therefore the only HONEST answer is that I shall criticize anything that I have discovered to be false. And don't you ever dare issue your fraudulent "yes or no" alternatives, because that false alternative is a lie and those who pose it are liars.

Not a trick question Carol. I haven't a clue as to why you brought up the Surgeon General. I certainly do not agree with everything they have thrown at us and there was nothing in the question that implied that. This is not a loyalty test. It really is a simple question.

I'll ask again

Do you believe smoking has any negative effect on health?

 

[AndriaD]

Not a trick question Carol. I haven't a clue as to why you brought up the Surgeon General. I certainly do not agree with everything they have thrown at us and there was nothing in the question that implied that. This is not a loyalty test. It really is a simple question.

I'll ask again

Do you believe smoking has any negative effect on health?

I have no earthly idea why Carol finds it necessary to be so combative, but I'll answer it: "to some people, a great deal, and to most people, slightly."

I grew up in a world filled with smokers, and a great many of my relatives suffered from it in various ways. It surely *contributed* to my dad's terminal lung cancer, and my mom suffered a great deal with COPD until she finally managed to quit. I smoked indoors until my son was 9, and his bronchitis was so bad he was missing 20+ days of school every year, but as soon as I started taking my smoking outdoors, he was able to manage perfect attendance.

My asthma didn't bother me nearly as much when I smoked as it does now, but I attribute that to the topical-anesthetic "smoothing agents" in cigarette tobacco -- my lungs were basically "numb", but just because I didn't feel their distress, doesn't mean it wasn't there, and I had a hour-long coughup every morning just to get rid of the crap they left behind. Now my asthma bothers me a lot more, because I can actually feel when my lungs are struggling, however my morning congestion is down to a cough or 3, not an hour or more.

My overall belief is that smoking is really not good for anyone, but it is very far from being the universal killer it is characterized as being; all the ANTZ nanny posturing is just control-freak puritanism, and they can all bite me; if anything could ever induce me to smoke again, it might be just so I could blow some smoke in their faces!

Andria

 

[CarolT]

Not a trick question Carol. I haven't a clue as to why you brought up the Surgeon General. I certainly do not agree with everything they have thrown at us and there was nothing in the question that implied that. This is not a loyalty test. It really is a simple question.

I'll ask again

Do you believe smoking has any negative effect on health?

It's not a "simple" question, it's a GOTCHA! question and you damn well know it. That's why you asked it in the first place, so quit trying to pretend it's all innocent and asked out of genuine curiosity.

By misrepresenting a specific, well-founded criticism as general denial, you intend to distract people away from the merits of the criticism and simply dismiss me as a kook. (As if you didn't make that obvious enough in your earlier post, never mind that YOU are the kook for disbelieving that infections cause cancer.) It's exactly the same sleazy behavior the mass media engage in, any time someone dares to dispute the claims of tobacco control, and you got your so-called "simple question" straight out of their playbook.

Not to mention that YOU are the one who's trying to derail the thread by sending it off into an inquisition of me personally, and to manhandle me into speculation about what diseases do I think smoking causes, as if it isn't perfectly obvious that I don't believe all the evidence is in.

 

[CarolT]

I have no earthly idea why Carol finds it necessary to be so combative, but I'll answer it: "to some people, a great deal, and to most people, slightly."

I grew up in a world filled with smokers, and a great many of my relatives suffered from it in various ways. It surely *contributed* to my dad's terminal lung cancer, and my mom suffered a great deal with COPD until she finally managed to quit. I smoked indoors until my son was 9, and his bronchitis was so bad he was missing 20+ days of school every year, but as soon as I started taking my smoking outdoors, he was able to manage perfect attendance.

My asthma didn't bother me nearly as much when I smoked as it does now, but I attribute that to the topical-anesthetic "smoothing agents" in cigarette tobacco -- my lungs were basically "numb", but just because I didn't feel their distress, doesn't mean it wasn't there, and I had a hour-long coughup every morning just to get rid of the crap they left behind. Now my asthma bothers me a lot more, because I can actually feel when my lungs are struggling, however my morning congestion is down to a cough or 3, not an hour or more.

My overall belief is that smoking is really not good for anyone, but it is very far from being the universal killer it is characterized as being; all the ANTZ nanny posturing is just control-freak puritanism, and they can all bite me; if anything could ever induce me to smoke again, it might be just so I could blow some smoke in their faces!

Andria

Why do you accuse me of being combative, instead of Stubby for playing GOTCHA!? That's what that kind of question is.

I wouldn't blame smoking for COPD because I know that T cells that are absolutely specific for CMV infection are involved in its pathogenesis. I also know that by freezing research at the level of lifestyle questionnaires and ignoring infection, the health establishment has effectively created a gigantic, modern-day Tuskegee Experiment. I know that HPV has been implicated in lung cancer. And, the death rates from asthma steadily rose, despite all the smoking quitters and smoking bans and people intimidated out of smoking in their own homes. I don't agree because I know a lot of things the mass media don't tell us.

 

[AndriaD]

Why do you accuse me of being combative, instead of Stubby for playing GOTCHA!? That's what that kind of question is.

I wouldn't blame smoking for COPD because I know that T cells that are absolutely specific for CMV infection are involved in its pathogenesis. I also know that by freezing research at the level of lifestyle questionnaires and ignoring infection, the health establishment has effectively created a gigantic, modern-day Tuskegee Experiment. I know that HPV has been implicated in lung cancer. And, the death rates from asthma steadily rose, despite all the smoking quitters and smoking bans and people intimidated out of smoking in their own homes. I don't agree because I know a lot of things the mass media don't tell us.

I dunno, every post you make seems really angry, all het up. I definitely think the ANTZ are vastly overstating the risks of both smoking and SHS, actively demonizing both smoking and smokers, and I'm pretty angry about that myself, and have been for quite some time... but there is just no way that purposely inhaling smoke can be good for anyone, particularly when you consider all the nasty, toxic, and carcinogenic chemicals that are purposely added to cigarette tobacco.

I started smoking in 1975; developed adult-onset asthma in 1985, and was told that if I did not quit smoking, I would DEFINITELY develop COPD. Well, I smoked for another 29 yrs after that, and never have developed COPD, despite clear indicators in much of my genepool that the propensity for it is probably there. So your reports about infection seem to me to have a great deal of validity, as well as everyone who cares about the matter completely ignoring that role -- your reports of this are really the first I've heard of it. I am not one to dismiss something just because it's new or different, if it appears logical and reasonable, and in light of what I just said about my own history and genetics, it seems quite logical and reasonable to me. I wish there was a way to learn more about this, without needing a degree in biology or biochemistry to understand it.

One thing I'm curious about is, what is/are the usual vector(s) for the particular infection(s) that would seem to play a role in COPD and/or lung cancer? I get that socioeconomic status seems a significant indicator... but in what particular way? Infections need a vector.

Andria

 

[OldBatty]

One thing I'm curious about is, what is/are the usual vector(s) for the particular infection(s) that would seem to play a role in COPD and/or lung cancer? I get that socioeconomic status seems a significant indicator... but in what particular way? Infections need a vector.

Andria

Sexually transmitted, I asked the same question a month ago. https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/f...-other-activists.696014/page-16#post-16486034