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

[englishmick]

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+CD2, 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

Thanks for answering my questions.

Generally though, if someone is trying to overthrow an established theory it is up to them to provide the evidence and be persuasive. That's hard to do, and it probably should be. A while back I read the story of how continental drift theory battled its way into the mainstream. It took a long time and a lot of work.

I've seen enough here to persuade me to put some effort into checking out viruses.

 

[CarolT]

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

Here's an example of anti-smokers claiming that smoking supposedly suppresses immunity by reducing the number of cervical Langerhans cells. But their studies ignored HPV, whose E6, E7 and L2 proteins were the real cause.
Lies About Smoking and Cervical Cancer

 

[CarolT]

Thanks for answering my questions.

Generally though, if someone is trying to overthrow an established theory it is up to them to provide the evidence and be persuasive. That's hard to do, and it probably should be. A while back I read the story of how continental drift theory battled its way into the mainstream. It took a long time and a lot of work.

I've seen enough here to persuade me to put some effort into checking out viruses.

Their theory is automatically impeached by the fact that they have systematically ignored crucial evidence. This is a done deal, but their juggernaut rumbles on thanks to a conspiracy of silence about it.

 

[caramel]

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.

Sounds like "the voice of experience", tell us more about it

 

[CarolT]

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.

The anti-smokers' claim that smoking causes heart disease is the biggest threat to vaping, because they try to implicate nicotine, so they can include vaping as well. As you can see, they're busy already: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/asfc-ndc112613.php

And eventually they'll have some crap population studies, based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of CMV in heart disease, which will cynically exploit the circumstance that smokers/vapers are more likely to be less wealthy people, and the less-wealthy are more likely to have been exposed to CMV, for socioeconomic reasons (i.e., the people around them are more likely to carry CMV, plus more crowded living conditions). And from that, they'll concoct some ridiculous number of heart disease deaths supposedly caused by vaping.

Here's the most important study on social class and CMV so far:
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US. AM Simanek, JB Dowd, AE Aiello. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):775-87. In NHANES subjects >/=45 years old, "CMV seropositivity was associated with cardiovascular disease history even after adjusting for confounders as well as SEP. The odds of reporting a history of cardiovascular disease for those with less than a high school education compared with those with more than a high school education decreased by 7.7% after adjusting for CMV (Sobel mediation test for CMV, P = 0.0006)." 40% of cardiovascular disease prevalence was attributable to CMV seropositivity.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US

And as noted in the commentary on the study: "With these caveats in mind, the most striking finding of Simanek et al.'s study is that the relatively modest OR of CVD associated with CMV infection translates into an estimate of the population attributable risk or attributable fraction of CVD of ∼ 40%... What is striking about this 40% attributable fraction estimate is the implication that eliminating CMV infection would prevent as many CVD cases as the complete removal of smoking and almost twice as many as the elimination of either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension from the population." (Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty. FJ Nieto. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):787-790.) And, a major caveat not mentioned is that the study could not consider the age at which people had been infected.
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty

However, those supposed smoking related deaths from heart disease are from ignoring the role of CMV! Likewise for their bogus deaths from secondhand smoke, where they get away with claiming it's supposedly nearly as dangerous as firsthand smoke. So it's easy to see that vaping is their next target.

 

[Rossum]

The anti-smokers' claim that smoking causes heart disease is the biggest threat to vaping, because they try to implicate nicotine, so they can include vaping as well.

Actually, there's good reason to believe that carbon monoxide causes heart disease, and there's no question that smoke contains substantial amounts of that, while vapor doesn't.

 

[caramel]

This is akin to studying the correlation between frequentation of (night)bars and clubs and STD, drawing the conclusion that STD are caused by bars.

 

[caramel]

Actually, there's good reason to believe that carbon monoxide causes heart disease, and there's no question that smoke contains substantial amounts of that, while vapor doesn't.

Also shifts, shift changes, long hours, changes to "summer time", workplace stress, occupational exposure etc.

Which of these would a labor camp ban?

 

[CarolT]

Actually, there's good reason to believe that carbon monoxide causes heart disease, and there's no question that smoke contains substantial amounts of that, while vapor doesn't.

Once they get a population study showing little or no reduction in heart disease among vapers (which happens when they ignore CMV), all the protests that vaping is different will come to nothing. Remember how they get away with claiming a ridiculous number of secondhand smoke deaths, despite the protest that the level of exposure is so enormously different.

 

[nicnik]

Here's the most important study on social class and CMV so far:
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US. AM Simanek, JB Dowd, AE Aiello. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):775-87. In NHANES subjects >/=45 years old, "CMV seropositivity was associated with cardiovascular disease history even after adjusting for confounders as well as SEP. The odds of reporting a history of cardiovascular disease for those with less than a high school education compared with those with more than a high school education decreased by 7.7% after adjusting for CMV (Sobel mediation test for CMV, P = 0.0006)." 40% of cardiovascular disease prevalence was attributable to CMV seropositivity.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US

Thanks for this link. I'll try my best to understand it, but I'll probably have questions.
Edit: And this one: Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty Thanks.

 

[nicnik]

While I hate to throw smokers under the bus, we need to be separating ourselves from them.

Should we also throw dual users under the bus?

 

[nicnik]

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.

I trust that you aren't basing your conclusions on a small sample.

 

[caramel]

Should we also throw dual users under the bus?

All these issues are caused by a segment of the population trying to throw another segment under the bus, for personal gain or just because they can.

We should ban the bus.

 

[nicnik]

caramel said: ↑
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.
Do you agree, and where should I look?

After the reading I've done today, I myself agree with that.

 

[OldBatty]

Sounds like "the voice of experience", tell us more about it

Want to thank Rossum for going where I was too chicken to go And CarolT for
answering me up thread. Since you asked...

First must state I have been happily (and faithfully!) married for almost 30
years. Never made the association until a few years ago when I saw it
discussed on another forum. Thought back and since I was a closet smoker
mostly dated non smokers. Even once had a girlfriend defend me when her mother
smelled stale smoke on my coat, "Oh both his parents smoke". About a year
before I met my wife briefly dated a smoker for the very first time. Needless
to say the rumors are true

Oh, the age in my profile is wrong, was in my early 20s not late teens when
this happened.

 

[stevegmu]

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.

This is true...

 

[WorksForMe]

Should we also throw dual users under the bus?

Of course not. I chose those words very poorly. I don't want to throw anybody under the bus. I used to be a smoker and then a dual user myself. I also have lots of friends and family that smoke. Having said that, I want to keep vaping as we know it legal and affordable. I don’t just want that for me; I have enough gear and DIY supplies to last most of the rest of my life. I’m most concerned about new vapers and smokers that might make the switch in the future.

I’m not sure what to think about this infection theory. With a lot more research and time it may be proved and shown to the world, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

 

[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.

I've now read some of your website, and done a bunch of googling today. Google led to a lot of PubMed articles, and I see you're right that it's a good place to look. The searches also led me to a lot of general info about viruses and cancer, and it was very helpful for me as background to seeing how neglected this subject is in smoking/cancer research.

It's clear to me that stupidity as the cause of this neglect is extremely far-fetched, and I'm left believeing that the most likely explanation is the same as for the other misinformation and bad science regarding smoking, smokeless tobacco and vaping. In part, it's another case of not asking the right questions, likely intentional.

Somehow, this all needs to be incorporated together to fight the fight. I'm new to this part of it, and with more info I could possibly see it differently, but I have trouble imagining what sort of info would change my current opinion that more research is needed, and better, more honest research at that. That along with more honest communication of what the research tells us. And informing people of this need.

 

[nicnik]

nicnik said: ↑
I'd like to first try to zoom in on what I bolded in this:
caramel said: ↑
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.
nicnik said: ↑
Do you agree, and where should I look?

After the reading I've done today, I myself agree with that.

Looks like I got confused by numbers. I'm not sure that statement is accurate, afterall. I'd still like to hear if CarolT agrees what I put in bold, and I'm certainly interested in any accompanying relevant info.

 

[nicnik]

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.

Or this?

On the basis of our experimental findings, we developed the concept of “oncomodulation” to better explain the role of HCMV in cancer. Oncomodulation means that HCMV infects tumor cells and increases their malignancy.

The Story of Human Cytomegalovirus and Cancer: Increasing Evidence and Open Questions