Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

[englishmick]

This is a minority of lung cancers, but HPV could account for a considerable proportion of lung cancers in non-smokers. And remember that most of the passive smoking studies in the EPA report were in Asians, where the prevalence of HPV-related lung cancers is highest. Poorer people are more likely to be exposed to HPV, based on things like rates of cervical cancer, and smokers along with those exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to be among the less-wealthy classes.

How much information is available about the distribution of smoking among different social / economic classes?

I don't recall coming across that but it seems like those numbers should be available.

 

[nicnik]

Did you scroll down my index page to where it lists the virus/disease links?

No. I haven't looked at your website yet. I bookmarked it just now, and I'll start reading.

Otherwise I don't know why you'd try to reinvent the wheel, or why you'd use Google rather than PubMed. A lot that's on Google is repetitious.

Why not? It was so easy to quickly get started, rather than having to find a post where you linked to it first. I might not have even started yet, had I not. I read enough to interest me further.

I'm intersted in how strong an association compared to with smoking, and the stuff you talk about how the viruses are more common among socio-ecomomic disadvantaged populations (is that the scientific way to say "poor people"?).

 

[nicnik]

I agree in the sense that it looks to me like a very plausible hypothesis. Wait until Carol jumps in again, you'll get some directions for sure.

Until then let's read about a virus-induced lung cancer in sheep:

Jaagsiekte Sheep Retrovirus Is Necessary and Sufficient To Induce a Contagious Lung Cancer in Sheep

P.S. Sheep don't smoke.

P.P.S. It's contagious which is something about cancers that "public health" doesn't openly admit. Unless it's transmitted through a "disease" called "smoking". See previous point though.

This was very interesting, at least the parts I could understand. So it's similar to a type of human lung cancer that used to be rare, but getting more common, and now comprising about 25% of human lung cancers.

 

[caramel]

This was very interesting, at least the parts I could understand. So it's similar to a type of human lung cancer that used to be rare, but getting more common, and now comprising about 25% of human lung cancers.

I found it interesting because of the "necessary and suficient" wording, aka that type of cancer is caused by a specific virus and nothing else.

Something similar may be happening with humans too - if we look closer instead of conflating everything into "lung cancer" or "copd" and blame smoking for it.

 

[nicnik]

Buggy quoting. Happens to me a lot where it puts in quotes and won't let me remove them. I don't want my questions to be lost in it:

CarolT said: ↑
Did you scroll down my index page to where it lists the virus/disease links?

nicnik said:
No. I haven't looked at your website yet. I bookmarked it just now, and I'll start reading.

CarolT said: ↑
Otherwise I don't know why you'd try to reinvent the wheel, or why you'd use Google rather than PubMed. A lot that's on Google is repetitious.

nicnik said:
Why not? It was so easy to quickly get started, rather than having to find a post where you linked to it first. I might not have even started yet, had I not. I read enough to interest me further.

I'm intersted in how strong an association compared to with smoking, and the stuff you talk about how the viruses are more common among socio-ecomomic disadvantaged populations (is that the scientific way to say "poor people"?).

 

[classwife]

Buggy quoting. Happens to me a lot where it puts in quotes and won't let me remove them. I don't want my questions to be lost in it:

There is a little icon that looks like a square disc thing...click that - it says Delete Draft

 

[nicnik]

There is a little icon that looks like a square disc thing...click that - it says Delete Draft

I don't think that's available in edit mode. The problem is it adds a whole bunch of the bracketed quote thing, especially a bunch of them at the end. I don't know it did it until I post, and then all I have to work with is edit mode.

 

[nicnik]

Did you scroll down my index page to where it lists the virus/disease links?
Otherwise I don't know why you'd try to reinvent the wheel, or why you'd use Google rather than PubMed. A lot that's on Google is repetitious.

Lots to read there, but it's disorganized and there're dead links. Read some good stuff, but it's difficult to zoom in on the info I most want there, which is stuff you've talked about on ecf. Maybe PubMed is is free to register. I'll check.

 

[OldBatty]

HPV Causes Lung Cancer
This is a minority of lung cancers, but HPV could account for a considerable proportion of lung cancers in non-smokers. And remember that most of the passive smoking studies in the EPA report were in Asians, where the prevalence of HPV-related lung cancers is highest. Poorer people are more likely to be exposed to HPV, based on things like rates of cervical cancer, and smokers along with those exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to be among the less-wealthy classes.

To add to englishmick question, are there any formal studies of sexual activity patterns of smokers verses non smokers? ie frequency and number of partners, condom use, etc. While you do not stress it, the implication is that HPV is (or can be) sexually transmitted?

 

[OldBatty]

I'll do for you the executive summary: there are studies saying that some viruses regularly show up in cancerous tissue. To the point where there is a stronger correlation between them and lung cancers than between smoking and said cancers.

Most excellent summary! I'm 99% convinced CarolT is on the right track with this and needs helpers who write short.

 

[CarolT]

I meant next step for me. I've read some of CarolT's links and lots of her posts, and opening my mind to it makes my head hurt. It's such an overwhelming change of direction.

That part about "it makes my head hurt" - people have said that again and again, and I don't understand it at all. For me, seeing the same old story again and again makes my head hurt, especially when the same old story is false. And if you think about the infection explanation, it explains a lot of other loose ends, such as why those studies based only on lifestyle questions claim that something is supposedly good one day and bad the next. It's because their cases and controls had different rates of infection, but they didn't look at that.

 

[CarolT]

That's valid for the antz materials too.

I'll do for you the executive summary: there are studies saying that some viruses regularly show up in cancerous tissue. To the point where there is a stronger correlation between them and lung cancers than between smoking and said cancers.

Yeah, and they don't just show up in cancerous tissue, they're also less common in non-cancerous tissue. After all, the infection precedes the cancer, so there would be some infections that aren't cancerous yet. Also, they don't just show up there, they also express proteins that take over the host cell and interfere with its normal activities, such as the HPV E6 protein binding the p53 tumor suppressor, and the E7 protein causing proliferation of cells. Also, sometimes the virus gets inserted right into the genomes of the cell, and sometimes it's in a circular form (episomal) within the cell. The full elucidation gets very technical, so catching the main point is the main thing.

 

[CarolT]

There's no further info available. Nothing you can do, short of organizing a new "March of Dimes" with the express purpose of researching those viruses and their role in lung cancers. And specifically forbidding in the statute even mentioning the word "tobacco". Otherwise the antz will take over again and consume all the funding in further anti-smoking campaigns.

The most important thing that we can do with the knowledge is loudly let it be known that we reject the legitimacy of the anti-smokers' pseudo-science, because they ignored the role of infection.

 

[CarolT]

And the conclusion you've reached is "more research needed", differing from the ANTZ version of that phrase, which is just begging for more junk science money. It would be honest in this case. But it sounds like that's how far you've gotten.

No, the problem is that there has been sufficient research that viruses and other pathogens are carcinogenic, but the anti-smokers use studies that either ignore it, or miss a lot of cases, or they ignore basic epidemiology on younger age at exposure or more frequent re-exposures.

Here's the bottom line that's relevant here: "Scientific proof of an hypothesis consists of elimination of all conceivable and reasonable alternative explanations, not in filling in the blanks in a prescribed set of rules." The anti-smokers "[fill] in the banks in a prescribed set of rules," and pretend that's all they need to do and they've proven that smoking is to blame! But they systematically ignore those "conceivable and reasonable alternative explanations." Therefore their crap is not legitimate science. And brainwashing the public to accept their crap is their biggest crime of all.

 

[englishmick]

I found it interesting because of the "necessary and suficient" wording, aka that type of cancer is caused by a specific virus and nothing else.

Something similar may be happening with humans too - if we look closer instead of conflating everything into "lung cancer" or "copd" and blame smoking for it.

It's always hard to move from association to causation. These diseases are most often found in smokers. Now it appears that they are most often found to have particular viruses present in the cancerous tissue. Could it be that smoking weakens the tissues making them more susceptible to virus attack. Or the virus weakens the tissues making them more susceptible to the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Or the virus just likes to live in already damaged tissue but has no role at all. I remember similar arguments about HIV, that one is settled now.

Maybe statistics can never get us to the answer. In the case of HIV they were able to identify the specific mechanism by which the virus operated. Has that step been completed in the case of these viruses.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical about this and look for a high standard of proof. After all tobacco smoke does contain quite a few chemicals that are know to be carcinogenic. I really want to know the truth about this, it seems kind of important.

One more question, for Carol I guess. I've seen cancer talked about a lot. Does this apply to COPD as well?

 

[CarolT]

To add to englishmick question, are there any formal studies of sexual activity patterns of smokers verses non smokers? ie frequency and number of partners, condom use, etc. While you do not stress it, the implication is that HPV is (or can be) sexually transmitted?

It's absolutely proven that HPV is sexually transmitted. But sexual activity patterns are only part of the story. The important part is whether the sexual partner(s) have HPV. In general, people from the richer strata are less likely to be infected. One reason is because they have less need to have sex for money, and less contact with people who do, or with contacts of contacts of people who do.

 

[WorksForMe]

I really don’t see the point of all this virus talk. Is it to prove the smoking is harmless? We all know that isn’t true. If the point is to prove smoking and SHS don’t cause lung cancer, while that would ultimately help our cause, it would probably take the next fifty years to get the world to believe it. We don’t have that much time, and we don’t have strong enough evidence. If you think the fight for vaping is a big one, it’s nothing compared to trying to convince the world that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

IMO, the ship has already sailed on the public’s opinion of smoking. I can accept that and move on. While I hate to throw smokers under the bus, we need to be separating ourselves from them. We need to continue showing that vaping is vastly less harmful than smoking and should be treated very differently.

 

[Rossum]

To add to englishmick question, are there any formal studies of sexual activity patterns of smokers verses non smokers? ie frequency and number of partners, condom use, etc. While you do not stress it, the implication is that HPV is (or can be) sexually transmitted?

I'm not aware of any formal studies, but informal studies conducted decades ago came to the conclusion that a guy had a better chance of getting some if he pursued gals who smoked than gals who didn't.

 

[englishmick]

I'm not aware of any formal studies, but informal studies conducted decades ago came to the conclusion that a guy had a better chance of getting some if he pursued gals who smoked than gals who didn't.

As usual Rossum cuts right through the guff and goes straight to the stuff that really matters.

 

[CarolT]

It's always hard to move from association to causation. These diseases are most often found in smokers. Now it appears that they are most often found to have particular viruses present in the cancerous tissue. Could it be that smoking weakens the tissues making them more susceptible to virus attack. Or the virus weakens the tissues making them more susceptible to the known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Or the virus just likes to live in already damaged tissue but has no role at all. I remember similar arguments about HIV, that one is settled now.

Maybe statistics can never get us to the answer. In the case of HIV they were able to identify the specific mechanism by which the virus operated. Has that step been completed in the case of these viruses.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical about this and look for a high standard of proof. After all tobacco smoke does contain quite a few chemicals that are know to be carcinogenic. I really want to know the truth about this, it seems kind of important.

One more question, for Carol I guess. I've seen cancer talked about a lot. Does this apply to COPD as well?

That stuff about smoking supposedly weakening the tissues is speculative, and the burden of proof is on the anti-smokers to show evidence of such things. It's basically their argument to make, so why would you embrace it, despite lack of evidence, unless you agree with them?

On each of my various pages, there is a section on mechanisms. And those viruses (HPV, HBV, HCV, EBV) have been declared human carcinogens by the IARC, while the NTP is dragging its feet about EBV, I think because so many of the diseases they blame on chemicals are also EBV-related (e.g. lymphomas) that they'd have to admit that a mountain of their work is junk.

Yes, it applies to COPD as well. They've been trying to blame smoking for COPD by implicating certain T-cells (CD4+CD28null), which just happen to be absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection! Nothing else causes those T-cells, they arise during primary infection, and they're not found in people who don't have CMV infection.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD